
J €<^~v^ 2-9- /P ^° 



y 















UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 









NOTES 



ON 



SCRIPTURE. 



bt 



JOEL JONES, LL.D. 



PHILADELPHIA: 
WILLIAM S. & ALFRED MARTIEN, 

No. 606 Chestnut Steeet. 
1861. 



I st* 



tflsi 



■^ 



Entered, according to act of Congress, in the year 1860, by 

WILLIAM S. & ALFRED MARTIEN, 

In the Office of the Clerk of the District Court for the Eastern 
District of Pennsylvania. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



CHAPTER I. 

Table of the genealogy of Jesus. Omission of names in the tahle of pedigree. 
Addition of title of King to David, and omission of the title to Solomon, sig- 
nificant. Omission of Matthew to make mention of the return of the tribes 
from captivity. Necessary change of phraseology — Emmanuel. Christ as 
truly the son of Joseph as of David or Abraham. Manner and occasion of the 
revelation made to Joseph. Testimony of Herod. Form of government ap- 
pointed for the tribes of Israel and for the land God gave them. Natural 
means of escape or protection, preferred to miraculous, in the passing of the 
Lord Jesus from infancy to manhood. The massacre of the children of Beth- 
lehem by Herod, a renewed cause for the lamentation of the mother of the 
ten tribes retrospectively spoken of by Jeremiah xxxi. 15. Pages 33 — 51 

CHAPTER II. 

John's character and ministry, why called the Baptist. Difference between the 
opinions of the early Christian writers and those of the last two centuries on 
the prophecy Mai. iv. 5. John not Elias in person — John equal to Elijah — 
The Elijah of the legal economy — John the subject of prophecy as well as 
Elijah, but not of the same prophecies — Both to be sent to a people dwelling 
together in the land of Israel. Distinction between the miraculous passage 
through the Bed Sea by Moses and the miraculous passage through the Jor- 
dan by Joshua. Significancy of the place where John baptized. John's 
object — his baptism ineffectual to restore national repentance. Momentous 
events to occur between John's baptism with water and the baptism of the 
nation with the Holy Ghost and with fire — John's baptism emblematical. 
The baptism of the Holy Spirit— our Lord's promise of baptism to his Apos- 
tles at his last interview does not include a baptism with fire. Baptism by 
fire. Baptism of Christ. The purpose of John's ministry declared by the 
angel. Intimate connection between the national salvation of Israel and the 
purpose of redemption. Jobn preaches repentance — his eminence above 
others — Wherein his preaching differed from the Apostles — Important pas- 
sages touching the character and offices of John. The question of the Phari- 
sees respecting John's office and authority. The question of the Priests 
and Levites respecting his baptism — His answer. John performed no mira- 
cles — Object of Christ's miracles. John's imprisonment — Suggestions as to 
the purpose for which John's imprisonment was so long continued. Com- 
mencement of Christ's ministry. Importance of considering Christ's personal 
ministry to the Jews under three distinct heads. Classification of miracles. 
Christ's Sermon on the Mount. The burden of the prophets. Christ's ful- 
filling the law— His restoration of all things. Christ's prohibition of oaths — 
Judicial oaths. The Lord's prayer. Miracles as a proof of the presence of 
the kingdom— Miracles for the purpose of proving the power of faith in the 
scheme of redemption — Healing the leper — The office of faith in miracles — 
Faith. Healing the Centurion's servant. Miracles in answer to faith — Diver- 
sities of the operations of faith — Typical import of these bodily cures. Christ's 
bearing our infirmities — Matthew's numerous quotations from the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures. Christ's title — The Son of Man. Miracles as the Son of 



12 CONTENTS. 

Man — Title as ' Son of Man' more comprehensive than his title of Messiah — 
evidence of his claim to each distinct and different, and exhibited to different 
witnesses and for different purposes — Promise of power to the disciples. 
Mysteries of Jesus' nature. Jesus' power over the physical world. The 
miracle of casting out demons an exercise of the Lord's power as Son of 
Man over the spiritual world — A reason for assigning miracles of this cha- 
racter to our Lord's Adamic office — Combination of miracles, for what pur- 
pose. Jesus' power over evil spirits. .... Pages 51 — 92 

CHAPTER III. 

Sins forgiven on account of the faith of sympathizing friends. Effect of the 
sublimity of our Lord's character and deportment. The prerogative which 
the Saviour claims as " Son of Man" annexed to his human, not his Divine 
nature. The call of Matthew — The Saviour's call always effective. Miracles 
as examples of the power of faith. The Gospel of Matthew not intended as a 
biography of our Lord, or as a connected record of his public ministry. The 
compassion of Jesus. The harvest field — The harvest — The time of the 
harvest — The Lord of the harvest. The calling of the Apostles — the power 
conferred on them limited to two kinds of miracles, annexed to their office as 
preachers of the kingdom. The commission of the Apostles previous io our 
Lord's resurrection. The Apostles not authorized expounders of the law. 
The Saviour's special care over the Apostles extending to the smallest and 
most necessary things. The meaning and intent of the precept " Let your 
peace," &c. Our Lord's ministry to the Jews a national visitation. Twelve 
Apostles sent to the cities of Israel. Cities held responsible as communities. 
Distinction between the gospel as preached to the Jews under the economy of 
law, and the gospel of grace preached to all nations. One commission, two 
missions under it, given to the Apostles. Eeference to the second mission. 
The Apostles' ignorance of the extent to which their service would ultimately 
be required, to be removed by the teaching of the Holy Spirit. First promise 
(by implication) of the Holy Spirit. Eeference to Christ's mission to that 
people, as Messiah, ended, and his mission as "Son of Man," or Saviour of 
all who would come unto him, commenced. Sending forth of the twelve — 
The subject of their teaching. Chief intent of John's inquiry of Jesus, by his 
disciples, "Art thou he that should come?" The prophecy respecting Elijah 
not applicable to John the Baptist. Exposition, differing from commentators, 
who consider the declaration of the Saviour, "The kingdom of heaven suffer- 
eth violence," &c, a rule of Christian life. The power and authority of Jesus 
as " Son of Man" taught by the Psalmist, also by Paul. Necessity of distin- 
guishing between the person, offices, or authority of Jesus, in order to obtain 
a clear understanding of his discourses — As " Son of Man," he claims absolute 
authority over the Sabbath. The power of Christ's will as Lord of the Sab- 
bath exemplified. First conspiracy against the life of Jesus. Christ's observ- 
ance of the rules of human prudence — Characteristic difference between the 
records of Matthew and Mark. The public demeanour of Jesus in his subject 
condition and servant form. The effect of our Lord's miracles upon those who 
witnessed them. Earthly analogies used by our Saviour in reply to the 
thoughts of the Pharisees. The absurdity of their calumny exposed. The 
Pharisees thrown into a dilemma. The kingdom of God (proved by his pre- 
sence) in the midst of that people as a nation — Satan's kingdom real as proved 
by the accusation of the Pharisees and the response of the Saviour. An 
allegory representing the power of the usurper and the Lordship of Jesus. 
Contrast between sins against the Holy Spirit and sins against the Son of Man. 
A call upon his calumniators for consistency. Scribes and Pharisees demand 
no further signs — The evidence already furnished sufficient for the trial of the 
nation — Evidences of his Divine character given in private to his disciples, 
which were withheld from the nation at large. A prophetic allegory, especially 
applicable to the Jews, shadowing forth their future character and moral con- 
dition. A contrast tacitly drawn by our Saviour, between mankind as fallen, 
and man as redeemed. Division of parables into public and private instruc- 
tion — Importance of the distinction between our Lord's public functions as a 
minister of the circumcision, and his private functions as a teacher of disciples. 
Christ's private instructions to his disciples contain the germ of all the great 
doctrines of the Epistles. Instruction on the parable of the sower. An alle- 



CONTENTS. 13 

gorical representation of the state of the world between the first and second 
advent of the Son of Man. The sublime conception enveloped in the parable 
of the tares of the field, made apparent by the Saviour's explanation — The 
central idea of the parable. Private instruction to the Apostles (specially 
intended) showing the result of their labours. A similitude of the teachers 
the Lord designed to raise up and instruct in the mysteries of the kingdom of 
heaven. Distinction between the Saviour's miracles. . Pages 92—132 



CHAPTER IV. 

Herod the Tetrarch's testimony to the truth and reality of the miraculous works 
of Jesus — The conclusion of the argumentative part of the Gospel of Matthew. 
Imprisonment of John the event upon which our Lord's public ministry 
was suspended. John's influence. The first seal put upon the nation's doom. 
Time of John's death — Term of his ministry — The connection between the 
personal ministry of John and the personal ministry of Jesus — Change in our 
Lord's public and private discourses and miracles, consequent on the death of 
John. The Saviour's design to make a new revelation of his character to the 
disciples and the multitude. The first miracle performed after the death of 
John the Baptist — This miracle an exercise of his Adamic power as Son of 
Man — Our Lord's argument deduced fron this miracle. Another exercise of 
our Lord's Adamic power belonging to his category of private instruction — 
The natural side of our Lord's character really the miraculous side — The 
miraculous side, but the natural outward actings of his glorious humanity. 
Peter's recognition of his Lord. The power of perfect faith. Perfect faith in 
Jesus, a power by divine constitution, superior to physical laws — One of the 
purposes of redemption, a construction of a new order of manhood by a gene- 
alogy derived from the second Adam. Two other miracles of power over 
nature silently wrought. Worship offered to our Lord. The Divine purpose 
as to the ultimate condition of this world. An illustration of the power of 
faith disconnected with the public purposes of Christ's ministry. Object of 
our Lord in the performance of the miracles near the sea of Galilee. The trial 
of the nation virtually closed — Our Lord's ministry personal. The dulness of 
the disciples — The import of the miracle of the loaves. The mystery of John 
the Baptist's person — The mystery of our Lord's person. Peter's acknowledg- 
ment of the incarnation of God the Son in Christ. The first disclosure of the 
mystery of the Lord's person by the Father to one of his disciples. The 
foundation of the Church. Mistakes and corrections. Our Lord's injunction 
to secresy respecting his title of Christ — His names, Jesus and Christ. Our 
Lord's method in the instruction of his disciples. Another example of Peter's 
rashness — our Lord's rebuke. Peter's mistake and ignorance of all the mys- 
teries of redemption, except the incarnation. The value of the soul. Christ's 
title, the Son of Man. The Transfiguration. The instruction conveyed by 
the Transfiguration intended for the Church. . . . Pages 133 — 175 

CHAPTER Y. 

The Coming of Elias. Casting out demons. The apostle's want of faith for 
miracles. The faith for working miracles. Jesus as Son of Man and as Christ. 
Jesus as Son of Man and as Messiah. Christ's Kingdom as Messiah. Christ's 
paying tribute. The apostles' question, Who shall be greatest in the kingdom 
of heaven? — the reply of our Lord. Little children saved. The Son of Man 
come to save the lost. Contending brethren to be reconciled. Sense of the 
word "church." Binding and loosing. The discipline of the Church. There- 
generation. Personal reign of Christ. The new heavens and new earth. The 
apostles to sit on thrones. All believers to receive rewards. Christ foretells 
his crucifixion Pages 176 — 227 

CHAPTER VI. 

Drinking of Christ's cup. The apostles not to be ambitious. The law of the 
kingdom. Christ came to serve. Melchizedec the Son of Man. Christ's 
entry into Jerusalem. Christ's lamentation over Jerusalem. Christ's expul- 



14 CONTENTS. 

sion of the money-changers. The homage of the children. The withering of 
the barren fig-tree. Christ is questioned by the priests. Christ's response. 
Christ's further response. The nation reject him. The parable of the two 
sons. The parable of the vineyard. The parable of the marriage. 

Pages 227—274 

CHAPTER VII. 

The plot against Christ in regard to tribute. Christ's reply in respect to tribute. 
The Sadducees deny the resurrection. Christ's answer respecting the resur- 
rection. Resurrection promised in the ancient covenants. The resurrection 
promised to the patriarchs. Christ's answer respecting the commandments. 
Christ's question respecting his title as Lord. He silences those who questioned 
him. The intimate connection of the several parts of the evangelical record. 
The Jews to hear the teachers of the law. Why the teachers of the law were 
to be heard. Character of the Scribes and Pharisees. The ambitious to be 
humbled, the lowly to be exalted Pages 274 — 300 

CHAPTER VIII. 

Our Lord's purpose in his address to the Scribes and Pharisees. Our Lord's 
purpose in prolonging the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees as teachers. 
Christ a sign to the Jews. The woe to the Scribes and Pharisees. A pre- 
diction of the issue of the trial of the nation under the dispensation of the 
Holy Spirit. The Scribes and Pharisees considered as representatives of the 
nation as well as individuals. The ground or cause of the nation's guilt for 
crimes committed from the beginning of the world. The apostrophe to Jeru- 
salem. Jerusalem and Judea to be desolated. The event upon which the 
return of the Divine favour is made.to depend. Destruction of the temple 
foretold. Question of the disciples about the temple. Question of the disciples 
respecting our Lord's coming. The meaning of the end of the aim or age. Im- 
perfection of the disciples' knowledge — ignorance and misconception of the 
Divine purposes. False Christs to arise — a warning to the Jews. The true sign 
of the end. Jerusalem's respite, denoted by the second mission of the servants 
in the parable of the marriage. Jerusalem's desolation. The distress of the 
nations. The advent of the Son of Man. The judgment of the nations. 
Christ's kingdom. The Revelation of St. John a symbolical explanation of 
the prophecy, or principal parts of it, contained in the 29th 30th and 31st 
verses of Matt. xxv. The prophecy relates to this world. . Pages 300 — 329 

CHAPTER IX. 

Crucifixion. First step in the proceeding against our Lord. Evasive answer 
of the Jews. Jews' acknowledgment that they were a subject people. Pilate's 
cognizance of the case necessary to the fulfilment of the Saviour's prediction 
of the manner of his death — Charges against Jesus — Pilate's mind unaffected 
by them. Colloquy between Christ and Pilate. Christ not born to be a king, 
but a king before he was born. Pilate's public acquittal of the Lord Jesus. 
Reiterated charges, with additional circumstances, suggest to Pilate the 
dismissal of the case to Herod. Jesus' appearance before Herod. Herod's 
questions — Christ's silence. Herod declines jurisdiction. The union of 
Pilate and Herod with the people whom they represented, a fulfilment of 
the second Psalm. Pages 330 — 354 

CHAPTER X. 

Pilate resumes the trial of the Lord Jesus. Obliquity of Pilate's moral sense. 
Pilate's expedients to satisfy our Lord's accusers. The interruption of Pilate 
by the message of his wife. The proposal of Pilate considered as an inti- 
mation of what passed in the secret councils of the Father, when our fallen 
race was set in comparison with his Son. The choice of Bar abbas deter- 
mined—relations existing between Adam and Barabbas on the one hand, 
and the Lord Christ on the other. By the course of Pilate's proceedings, 
and the form of his judgment, the Jews demand the crucifixion of their 



CONTENTS. 15 

King and Messiah. The way to the mystery of the cross prepared by the 
imprudence of Pilate, and the crime of the priests and people. Pilate's 
attempt to conciliate the passions of envious wicked men with his duty. 
The voluntary wickedness of Pilate, and of that generation of the Jews, 
was the instrument of Christ's sufferings at that time. Pilate's solemn 
acquittal of Jesus — his criminal inconsistency. The imprecation of the Jews. 
Pilate's efforts to reconcile the demands of justice and his own conscience 
with his fears. Satan the instigator of the bodily sufferings of our Lord — 
An exhibition of the love of God, and of the Son, and of the severity of divine 
justice. The crime of the Gentiles. Second mockery of the royalty of Jesus. 
Jesus crowned with the emblem or symbol of the curse. Fulfilment of 
Isaiah 1. 6. Pilate's further attestation to Jesus' innocence. Pilate's presen- 
tation to the people of the true Messiah they had so long expected. The 
priests fear the effect of the appearance of Jesus on the people. Every 
pretext to future calumnies removed by Pilate's reiteration of the innocence 
of Jesus. The Jews endeavour to remove the scruples of Pilate by a new 
accusation — The grounds of the accusation examined — The foundation of the 
doctrine of the Trinity firmly laid in the Old Testament. The effect of this 
new accusation on Pilate. Pilate's inquiry into the origin of the Lord Jesus. 
Jesus' silence. Pilate's confession removes all excuse for his conduct. Jesus 
instructs Pilate upon the point of his (Pilate's) authority, inasmuch as he 
claimed a power independent of the providential government of God. Satan 
the chief actor in this great conflict. The death of the Lord on the cross by 
means of Judas, Jews and Gentiles, foretold by the words, "Thou shalt bruise 
his heel." Pilate given over to the invisible power of Satan. Jews' incon- 
sistency. Formal presentation of their King to the Jews. Their renunciation 
of him, and all the promises made to Abraham and David. God's judgments 
upon them. The Jews living witnesses of the divine mission of our Lord. 
End of the proceeding before Pilate — fulfilment of Isaiah liii. 8. Jews and 
Gentiles concur in the accomplishment of the mystery of redemption. Judas' 
repentance not genuine — his destruction a direct act of Satan's power. 
Irregular workings of conscience in depraved men. Perpetuation of Judas' 
and the priests' crime. Discrepancy accounted for. Leading the Saviour out 
of the city more than a compliance with Roman or Jewish customs. Christ 
bearing his cross. An allegorical intimation of the future call of the Gentiles, 
according to some of the early Christian writers. Mutability of popular 
feeling. Jesus' warning to those who bewailed him. National ruin of the 
Jews and its continuance. Similarity between the language of our Saviour 
and that of Hosea, when predicting the fall of Samaria, and also with that 
of John, when opening the sixth vial. The hopelessness of the escape of the 
heir of the curse, except in the way of God's own appointment. 

Pages 354—403. 

CHAPTER XI. 

Fulfilment of Isaiah liii. 12. Tradition prevailing extensively in the early 
Christian Church. Different statements of the Evangelist reconciled. 
Divine simplicity of the statement of the Evangelists. An additional proof 
of Christ's divine mission. Christ's cross converted into a tribunal. The 
Saviour's prayer. Sins against the Son of Man. Sin against the Holy 
Ghost. Discrepancy (not affecting the substance of the writing) accounted 
for. Testimony of the Judge and Governor of the Jews as the murderer of 
their own Messiah. Pilate's peremptory refusal to alter the superscription. 
Christ's self-humiliation. The seamless coat typical of that perfected body of 
believers which our blessed Lord will at his coming gather to himself. Neces- 
sity for actual ocular witnesses of the death of Jesus. Seeming discrepancy 
between Mark xv. 25, and John xix. 14, reconciled. The proof demanded by 
the rulers inconsistent with the object of Christ's mission. Conduct of the sol- 
diers. The proof demanded by the chief priests and scribes not adapted to 
change the heart. Omissions of the Evangelists. The malefactor's rebuke — 
his repentance, faith, and prayer, a wonderful exhibition of the power and 
grace of Christ in his greatest humiliation — his testimony to the innocence 
of our Lord Jesus of a much higher order than Pilate's. The penitent male- 
factor more fully instructed in the mystery of redemption, while hanging on 
the cross, than Peter, John, or the other disciples were at that time — Jesus' 
gracious promise— The consciousness of the soul in its state of separation from 



16 CONTENTS. 

the body. The company of friends around or near the cross. Existence of 
natural affection in the future state. The exfiliation of Jesus and the substi- 
tution of John, an official act. Proofs and signs of his Messiahship (now the 
Jews' probation as a nation was ended.) The abandonment of the Father, an 
indispensable part of the plan of redemption. Misunderstanding of the by- 
standers. One other prophecy to be fulfilled. Fulfilment of Psalm lxix. 21. 
Erroneous belief of the by-standers. All things accomplished necessary for 
the perfecting of the new creation. Voluntary separation of Christ's spirit 
from his body by his own inherent power — Eetention of his spirit up to the 
time when the Paschal Lamb ought to have been slain — A fulfilment of the 
type. Symbolical import of Matt, xxvii. 51 — 53; Luke xxiii. 45. Public dis- 
plays of the Divine power — A new dispensation — Pisen saints. Impressive- 
ness of the last scene — Testimony of heathens to the excellency of our 
Lord's character. Effect of the last scene upon those attracted by curiosity — 
Love a more powerful principle than fear, illustrated by the group of females 
in the distance. Fulfilment of Ps. xxxiv. 20; Exod. xii. 46; Numb. ix. 10; and 
also a partial fulfilment of Zech. xii. 10. The death of Jesus established 
beyond the possibility of doubt. The request of Joseph of Arimathea. Pro- 
vidential arrangements for the accomplishment of Divine purposes. Nicode- 
mus's care of the body of our Lord. Sense of the Psalmist xvi. 10. Jewish 
mode of burial. An over-ruling providence in the selection of the place of 
the burial. Precaution taken by the disciples to secure the entrance into the 
sepulchre. Observance of the law of the Sabbath by the Jewish females, fol- 
lowers of Jesus. Disregard of their own law of the Sabbath by the chief 
priests and the Pharisees. The evidence of our Lord's resurrection by Divine 
power placed beyond all doubt or question. . . . Pages 403 — 446 

CHAPTER XII. 

A short harmony of the chapters to be considered. The doctrine of the resur- 
rection equal in importance to any other in the Scriptures— absolutely essen- 
tial to the truth and consistency of the other Scriptures. First and second 
incarnation— the headship of Christ as the second Adam — the whole doctrine 
of the glorified church inseparably connected with the doctrine of our Lord's 
resurrection. The Marys at the sepulchre. The absence of all that can 
minister to vain curiosity an unequivocal note of the inspiration of the record 
— the descent of the angel, the earthquake, the removal of the stone not 
necessary to the resurrection of Jesus, but a proof to the watch, and through 
them to the nation, of the presence and power of God, in bringing to nought 
their precaution. The address of the angel to the company of females at the 
sepulchre. The message with which the angel charged the woman — Inter- 
course between angels, the Saviour, and his disciples. The flight of the first 
party of females from the sepulchre — Difficulty in harmonizing this part of 
the Evangelist's record removed. Eeproof of the angels to the females for their 
unbelief. Providential design in these successive companies of persons, mul- 
tiplying proofs, and more quickly and widely circulating the news. Impres- 
sion Mary Magdalen's communication made on the minds of Peter and John. 
John's timidity. Consistency of the narrative with the known character of 
these apostles. Effect on John's mind of his visit to the sepulchre. Ministry 
of angels in the present dispensation. Question of the angels — Mary's igno- 
rance of her Lord's character, and of the real object and end of his ministry — 
Cause of Mary's composure, so different from the manner of the company who 
fled affrighted from the sepulchre. Mary's view of Jesus, though unknown 
to her. The Saviour's question put as a proof to Mary of his bodily presence. 
Spiritual natures. Mary's recognition of her Lord, through his power over 
her mind and spirit — This power, an attribute with which he will endow the 
renewed nature of all his people, when they shall be changed into his like- 
ness. Christ's prohibition of Mary's touch explained by taking the passage 
in its literal sense — Christ prefigured by the High Priest, under the Levitical 
economy — the type to be fulfilled in all points — Distinction conferred on Mary 
Magdalene. Jesus in his future interviews with his disciples no longer to be 
considered as an inhabitant of the earth, but as having completed his earthly 
ministry, as the rending of the veil denoted the end of the Levitical economy. 
Character of the narrative. Occurrences at the sepulchre communicated to 
the Apostles by the women. Peter's second visit to the sepulchre. Difference 



CONTENTS. 17 

' between the feelings of the women and the Apostles on Jesus' appearance to 
them — Different messages to his disciples by the two companies of women. 
Christ's risen body not confined to the earth during the forty days — Inade- 
quate conception of the attributes of our Lord's risen human body. The visit 
of the military guard to Annas and Caiaphas. The Sanhedrim convened — 
their consultation. Malicious ingenuity of the members of the Sanhedrim. 
Promised security from the punishment due to the soldiers for an alleged 
breach of military duty. The belief of the report that the body of Jesus was 
stolen, confined to the Jews — pains taken by them to circulate and perpetu- 
ate it. •. . Pages 446— 490 

CHAPTER XIII. 

"Walk to Emmaus — Low views of the two disciples of the dignity, office, and 
work of Christ — The Messiah regarded chiefly as the promised deliverer of 
Israel from their bondage to the Gentiles — His kingdom believed by the Jews 
to be terrestrial merely. Diversities of expectations and hopes of the Jews in 
regard to the moral character of their nation in its restored state. Ignorance 
of the means necessary to accomplish this redemption of Israel according to 
the flesh — Ignorance of our Lord's purpose to gather an elect church out of 
all nations, and to exalt it far above all terrestrial glory — First disclosure of 
this purpose. The defective views of Christ's first followers accounted for, 
without ascribing to them carnal and merely worldly hopes. Ignorance of 
God's purpose to restore the earth to its lost place in his universal kingdom. 
Restoration of the theocracy. The chief object of our Saviour's discourse to 
his disciples on their way to Emmaus. Prophecies in the books of Moses con- 
cerning Christ. Conjectures as to the passages he cited and explained from 
the prophets. Jewish custom. Impression made on the disciples by the 
conversation of Jesus. Eecognition of these disciples. New views of the pro- 
phetic Scriptures obtained by them. The. Lord's appearance to Peter. The 
return of the two to the company of disciples gathered at Jerusalem. The 
narrative of the two. The effect of the Lord's appearance. Universality of the 
belief of the spirit-world — good and bad angels. Jesus furnishes his disciples 
with a convincing evidence of his corporeal and spiritual identity. Transition 
of feeling. Removal of all doubt. Criticism. Peculiarities of the writings of 
the different Evangelists. Christ with his disciples as he was with Abraham 
in the plain of Mamre, or with Manoah — matter of his address. Our Lord's 
sanction of the three great divisions of the Jewish Scriptures, and his asser- 
tion that he is the great subject of each of them. The disciples advance in 
knowledge. A new commission including Gentiles — all nations. Divine 
judgments on the Jewish nation. An election of grace. A supernatural 
vision necessary to make Peter comprehend God's purpose of mercy to the 
Gentiles. The great difficulty the apostles and most attached disciples of our 
Lord had in believing his resurrection became the means of establishing 
more firmly the truth of this doctrine. The great miracle of this dispensa- 
tion. Human testimony indispensable. Office of bearing testimony conferred 
on his male disciples. Comparison of the mission given with the mission re- 
ceived. Symbolical action. Method of instruction. Inauguration of the new 
dispensation. Powers and gifts conferred on the apostles, and personal to 
them at the opening of the new dispensation, not transmitted to bishops, 
elders, teachers, and pastors of the church in later years. The ascension. 
Testimony of Barnabas to the belief of the apostolic churches in relation to the 
eighth day. Confirmatory testimony afforded by the appointment of the 
temple-service for the day. Offering of Divine worship. Contrast in the 
state of mind of these believers. Fulfilment of the Saviour's promise. As- 
cension to the Father before appearing to any of the disciples except Mary 
Magdalene . . Pages 490 — 517 

CHAPTER XIV. 

Effect of the first interview of the Lord with the apostles after his resurrection. 
Employment of the apostles between the day of the Lord's resurrection and 
the day of Pentecost. Thomas's absence— interview between the disciples and 
Thomas. Thomas reflects on the disciples as timid and credulous. The 

3' 



18 CONTENTS. 

second appearance of our Lord to his male disciples. The conviction of 
Thomas. Jesus proves his omniscience, and consequently his divine nature — 
Thomas's recognition of his human and divine nature in the heartfelt confes- 
sion of his faith. Illustration of the character which Paul ascribes to Jesus — 
The resurrection of Jesus an essential article of the Christian faith — The fact 
of the resurrection to be established at that time for all ages — Eeason of our 
Lord's appearing specially to Thomas — The principle which distinguishes the 
dispensation of the Holy Spirit from that of our Lord's personal ministry — The 
futility of the argument of infidels — Office of the Holy Spirit. The seven 
disciples at the sea of Tiberias — their silence. The third appearance of our 
Lord to his male disciples — the special reason of this appearance. Our Lord's 
address to Peter — Peter the only apostle whose personal history was foretold. 
Peter's curiosity — Oar Lord's reply, withholding all information, except that 
he was the sovereign disposer of John's life. Mistake of the disciples. The 
appearance in Galilee — Manner of it — Worship offered to our Lord — Our 
Lord's response to the worship of his disciples. Scope of the Apostolic com- 
mission — Infant baptism. Importance and use of the promised miraculous 
endowments in laying the foundations of the Church — their long contin- 
uance unnecessary. Appearance to James — Final appearance of our Lord 
to his disciples as witnesses of his ascension — A paraphrase — Eeturn from 
Mount Olivet to Jerusalem. The kingdom of God. The convening of the 
disciples. John's Baptism. Misconception of the apostles in relation to the 
kingdom. Times and seasons in relation to the purposes of redemption con- 
fined to the Divine mind. The Lord's ascension. The Apostles' employment 
until the Pentecost — Prayer offered to the Lord Jesus — The active public 
ministry of the gospel not committed to the female disciples. The Day of 
Pentecost Pages 517— 548. 



CHAPTEE XV. 

The glorification of the crucified body of Jesus. The feast of Pentecost — Short 
pauses in the march of the Divine administration. The descent of the Holy 
Spirit — The first effect upon the Apostles — A fulfilment in part of the 
Saviour's promise, at his last interview with the twelve before he suffered — 
Difference between the regenerative and the miraculous operations of the 
Holy Spirit — Various effects on the minds of the people. Peter repels the 
calumny of the Jews — Uses the event as a proof of the resurrection — Peter's 
argument — Design of the obscurity of the prophecies relating to the resurrec- 
tion and exaltation of Christ — The great change wrought in the mind of Peter 
by the Holy Spirit. The striking contrasts in the character of Peter as deli- 
neated in the gospels and the first fifteen chapters of the Acts. Effect of the 
first sermon of the new dispensation. The only miracles of the day of Pente- 
cost — Object of conferring miraculous powers on the Apostles at this time — 
The elect Church — The inheritance of the elect Church — The visible Church. 
The miracle of healing — Peter's discourse. Means employed by the Holy 
Spirit to accomplish his own work — Holiness a means for the transmission of 
Divine power. Chief design of the miracle of healing — Miracles as attestations 
of authority, irrespective of faith in the subject — Miracles of healing upon ap- 
plication of the subject; faith indispensable. Change in the Apostles' address. 
The second personal coming of the Lord and the restitution of all things, 
suspended by Divine appointment upon the repentance and conversion of 
Israel — The national existence of the Jews prolonged, for what purpose — The 
Apostles' observance of Levitical rites proper, during the standing of the 
temple — The first offer of the gospel made to the Jews under the new dispen- 
sation. A new epoch in the national history of the Jews. The times of 
refreshing. The different dispensations. The restitution of all things. 
Opinion that the Millennium will precede the coming of the Lord irrecon- 
cilable with the Scriptures, concerning the possible nearness of that coming. 
The whole subject of the coming dispensation beyond the sphere of our con- 
ceptions. The restitution retarded by the fall of Israel, and still further by 
the falling away of the Church — The times of restitution dependent upon the 
full execution of the Saviour's last command. . . Pages 548 — 575 



A FEW .PRELIMINARY WORDS. 



That the author of a work which, either as to its substance 
or its method, is seriously influenced by considerations which 
are not discussed in the work itself, should, by preliminary 
explanations, or even by a large introduction, set forth those 
controlling considerations, is extremely natural, may often be 
indispensable, and was formerly very general. But it is not 
possible for one human being so to possess himself of the 
whole thought cf another, as to perform this service for him, 
even when it is needed, with complete success. Moreover, it is 
only in works of a peculiar kind — and this work of Judge 
Jones can hardly be said to be of that kind — that such 
attempts can be important, even when they are successful. It 
is because the duties of friendship are sacred — sacred towards 
the dead — sacred towards those who survive — far more than 
because there is any need of it, that any words of mine pre- 
cede these Notes on Scripture. 

Many years ago, and for a number of successive years, it 
was my fortune to be immediately connected, as owner, pub- 
lisher, and editor, with the periodical press. Judge Jones 
was one of the largest and most valued contributors to those 
pages for which I was, in so many ways, responsible. Exposi- 
tions of Scripture, and expositions, critical and historical, of 
the Papacy, were his chief themes. This literary connection 
ripened into a warm and lasting friendship ; and in this man- 
ner were those abounding opportunities afforded, to appreciate 
justly his gifts, his attainments, and his virtues, and to speak 
with the greatest confidence of his remarkable fitness as an 
expositor of the word of God. 

Liberally educated, all that part of his culture was made 
both complete and permanent, by his pursuing the profession 



20 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

of a teacher for some years during his early manhood : a pro- 
fession which, as President of the great Institution founded by 
Mr. Girard, he resumed for a short period in maturer life. 
Trained to the profession of the Law, and for a number of 
years a Judge, the habits of deep research and patient thought, 
which made that noble calling familiar to him, and the rec- 
titude of mind which made its administration honourable, all 
alike fitted him, at the same time, for some of the highest 
duties of an expositor of sacred Scripture. To a knowledge, 
at once accurate and broad, of those ancient languages in 
which God has re.vealed his will to man, he added a familiar 
acquaintance with the chief languages, both ancient and 
modern, in which mankind has most largely discu*ssed divine 
things ; and in them all, how wide and thorough his reading 
was, all his writings testify. Naturally endowed with high 
faculties, justly balanced and nobly directed; enriched with 
great experience of life, and adorned with much of its best 
success; he added as his highest fitness for his favourite 
studies, that reverence and love for the word of God, that con- 
formity of heart and life unto it, and that spiritual insight of 
its mysteries, which they who have not, are but blind leaders 
of the blind. It is such a man, the last and, as he judged, the 
best labours of whose life, and that a life rather long than 
short, are contained in this volume — nearly, though not strictly, 
posthumous. His gentle and modest spirit, though it did not 
direct, desired this publication. The bereaved partner of his 
life lays it as a tribute of love upon the altar of the Lord. If 
the saints of the Most High fructify by its use, its whole end is 
gained. 

It is striking and very affecting to observe, in all the scrip- 
tural expositions of Judge Jones, the direction which his 
thoughts took, and the tenacity with which his mind adhered 
to that which occupied it most. These Notes on Scripture are, 
in effect, an exposition of the Gospel doctrine concerning the 
Lord Jesus Christ, as this diligent student of the Scriptures 
understood it. They are Notes upon those portions of the 
Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, embracing, rather 
incidentally, parallel and illustrative passages from all the 
other inspired books, which appeared to him to contain and to 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 21 

develop the Gospel doctrine concerning the Saviour of the 
world. In some respects they are critical — in some respects 
they are historical ; but it is their expository character which 
chiefly distinguishes them — expository in the sense of being 
carefully and continually directed towards the precise under- 
standing of the entire meaning of the particular inspired state- 
ments as contained in themselves, and as illustrated, enforced, 
or limited by other inspired statements, and by the great ideas, 
and aim, and end of all inspired Scripture. The aspect of the 
work is not devotional, nor is it controversial ; nor is it, pro- 
perly speaking, dogmatical; but it is of the nature of a judicial 
analysis, and determination of the true meaning of a record, 
the particular portions of which that bear specially upon cer- 
tain vast topics, have been submitted to a most rigorous 
scrutiny. And the candid reader will observe, everywhere, 
the studious diligence with which every conclusion is made to 
rest on special Scriptures, which are constantly cited ; the 
judicial fairness with which conclusions differing from his own 
are stated ; the modesty with which new interpretations, and 
peculiar opinions are announced; and the blended calmness 
and directness with which his own interpretations and judg- 
ments are given. 

The casual reader of this volume may receive the impression 
that it is fragmentary and incoherent. Whoever will carefully 
read over, in connection, the tables of contents prefixed to its 
fifteen chapters, will perceive how erroneous such an impression 
would be. Commencing with the genealogy of Jesus, the work 
terminates with the glorification of Christ. Between these two 
points lies the whole work of the Mediator between God and 
man, in his estate of humiliation, and also the beginning of his 
work in his estate of exaltation ; and all is discussed from the 
particular point of view occupied by the author. Of the seven 
chapters at the close of the volume, three are devoted to the 
crucifixion of Christ ; and the last four to his resurrection and 
all that followed, until, and including, the outpouring of the 
Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. From the beginning to 
the end, the chain of thought and the sequence of the facts is 
rigorously preserved ; and the numerous and important ques- 
tions of an incidental kind, which were obliged to be discussed, 



22 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

are so skilfully disposed as to strengthen, instead of breaking 
the continuity of the development. In such a performance 
it would be impossible to evade the expression of the writer's 
opinions upon all those immense topics following after Pente- 
cost, which arise out of the dispensation of the Lord Jesus, 
considered in his estates of humiliation and exaltation ; and it 
is not improbable that the deep interest which Judge Jones is 
known to have felt for many years, in all questions connected 
with the second coming of the Son of Man, may have been a 
chief cause of the composition of this work. Undoubtedly, 
his views on those subjects could not fail to enter into his views 
of many preceding subjects, out of which they grew; and the 
spirit, and method, and rule of his interpretations upon strictly 
connected topics, could hardly fail,, in such a mind as his, to 
be uniform and constant. As now used, the word Millen- 
narian is one of the vaguest ever employed to designate an 
opinion, a theory, or a party. Nevertheless, in a sense some- 
what peculiar to himself, but very clear and decided, Judge 
Jones was a Millermarian ; and to omit stating the fact here, 
would have been deemed by himself, unworthy, if not sinful. 
While it is true, as I have intimated, that the views enter- 
tained by Judge Jones concerning the second advent, and the 
numerous and sublime events dependent on it, necessarily 
suppose a certain sense to be the true sense of various passages 
of Scripture which do not treat immediately of that second 
advent ; it by no means follows that all who accept this tone 
and particular sense of those passages last alluded to, must 
necessarily accept his views of the second advent. For ex- 
ample, it is impossible to see how he could embrace the views 
he held concerning the second advent, if he had not been a 
Calvinist ; but it is very easy to see that one may be a Cal- 
vinist and not embrace them. Moreover, there are multitudes 
of topics in the Scriptures — and they amongst the most vital 
of all — which do not appear to have any assignable relation to 
any special class of opinions touching the Millennium; as, for 
example, our Effectual Calling, its nature, and the manner of 
its occurrence. The object of stating these distinctions, is to 
point out how naturally it may occur, and to assert my per- 
sonal conviction that these Notes on Scripture, wholly irre- 



PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 23 

spective of their character as touching any doctrine of the 
Millennium, are of extraordinary value. Many questions of 
great difficulty and deep interest to every student of the Scrip- 
tures, are treated -with great clearness and force; and many 
more of high personal importance to every human being, 
are settled with singular distinctness; and all this is done 
■with a simplicity of style and a fruitfulness of matter rarely 
combined. 

I shall not attempt to estimate, or even to state in a con- 
nected and systematic manner, the opinions of Judge Jones 
dispersed through this work, on those vast topics which em- 
brace the whole future of the human race, and of the kingdom 
of God, as connected with this earth. They are topics on 
which my own views have been laid before the public in a 
permanent form. It is proper to say, and it is sufficient, that 
I adhere to what I have published; in some things agreeing 
with the views presented in these JVotes, in some things 
dissentiog entirely from them, in some things standing in 
great uncertainty of mind where positive opinions are herein 
expressed. In these respects, I may probably consider myself 
not an unfit representative of the great mass of such serious 
Christians, now alive, as have anxiously pondered these things, 
and have found our attainments in Divine knowledge and the 
Divine life, not adequate, as yet, to the attainment of complete 
satisfaction regarding all their high mysteries. Very shallow 
views, which long prevailed amongst Protestant, and still 
longer amongst Papal expositors, no longer satisfy the minds 
of God's people; and my long and wide experience as an office- 
bearer in the Church of Christ, has made me fully aware, that 
the common people have as thoroughly passed from those inter- 
pretations, as our whole current religious literature shows that 
the minds of their teachers are widely unsettled concerning 
them. In this volume, we have an original, independent, 
temperate, and able contribution in aid of every one who is 
inquiring concerning the true sense of God's word, touching 
the great promise and the great threat of the New Testament 
Scriptures. They who the most readily- receive, without 
careful examination, what is herein written, will depart the 
farthest from the spirit and the habit of him who wrote it. 



24 PRELIMINARY REMARKS. 

There are two particulars concerning the authorship of this 
volume which, though subordinate in themselves, seem to me 
to demand special mention here. In the first place, it is the 
work of a private gentleman, much and long engaged in 
important affairs, apparently remote from such studies; thus 
recalling the times when the highest officers of state, the 
noblest gentlemen and scholars, nay the great publicists and 
even captains, took in hand to record the doings, and to ex- 
pound the doctrine of the Lord ; and thus laid at the feet of 
Jesus, tributes which still adorn and enrich his people. . It is 
a precious token of a better day with us. In the second place, 
it comes out of the bosom of the Presbyterian Church — that 
great branch of that God-fearing Reformed Church- — to whose 
highest turrets men look to see the light of God as it rises, 
break on them first of all; and to which they look to see it 
linger there last of all, when it departs. One more of her sons 
has lifted up his clear and loud call to dying men — and the voice 
is all concerning Jesus, and the glory that is to be revealed. 

R. J. B. 
Danville, Kentucky, 

December y 1860. 



MEMOIR. 



Christian Biography is at once a just tribute to the dead, and 
an instructive monument to the living. When a useful life is 
closed in death, and a character moulded into completeness 
presents itself for a last survey, as we tenderly consign it 
among the treasures of memory, both philosophy and piety 
dictate that we should ponder its lesson, and heed its moral. 
And should we find, while pursuing the pensive task, that the 
world has been made richer by a new example of virtue, that 
we gain juster views of the dignity and value of human exist- 
ence, and of the entire compatibility of deep religious senti- 
ments with earthly toils, successes, and honours, it will then 
seem a duty as well as privilege, to extend and perpetuate the 
influence. 

It is such a moral legacy that has been bequeathed by the 
learned author of this volume. With his departure has passed 
away a type of the Christian scholar, as singular in its excel- 
lence as it is difficult to delineate. It must remain a solitary 
model of blended learning and goodness that may be revered 
and cherished, but cannot be perfectly matched or imitated. 
Some may have approached him in mere erudition — some may 
have equalled him in mere piety — a few, under the impulse of 
an academic or clerical vocation, may have illustrated as sig- 
nally the harmonious union of these two attainments; but it 
was his rare merit, and, it would seem, his peculiar mission, 
that while actively engaged in the legal profession, he should 
yet make himself a master in theology; and, though called to 
public positions and busied with secular interests, should so 
thoroughly fuse together the judicial virtues and religious 
graces, as to present the two-fold aspect of a Christian without 
a trace of cant or enthusiasm, and a jurist without a taint of 
duplicity or worldliness. 

That such a life on review should seem comparatively un- 
eventful, may remind us that it is not always the most stirring 
careers that are the most useful, or the most worthy of study 
and imitation. 

Judge Joel Jones was born in Coventry, Connecticut, on the 
26th of October, 1795. Descended from Puritan ancestry, and 
carefully trained by a mother who was of the same religious 
race, he exemplified the inheritance of natural virtue, and the 
covenant mercy which is from generation to generation. His 
4 



26 MEMOIR. 

father, Amasa Jones, was largely engaged in mercantile busi- 
ness as well as farming. His mother was the daughter of the 
Rev. Dr. Joseph Huntington, well known in the New England 
churches. He was the eldest of nine children. The first years 
of his life were principally spent upon the farm; but even 
at that early period, it is said that "the mature and elevated 
character which he ultimately developed was distinctly fore- 
shadowed." 

When he was about fifteen years of age, an uncle for whom 
he was named, desired to associate him with him in his busi- 
ness, and for this purpose he removed to Hebron. Here, 
though always diligent and courteous, he soon showed that 
such a calling was not consonant with his intellectual tastes and 
aspirations. Without the knowledge of any one, he purchased a 
Latin grammar, and devoted his leisure hours to self-prepara- 
tion for his future course. When his studious habits and 
inclinations became known, both his uncle, who was strongly 
attached to him, and his father, united to throw obstacles in 
his way, and to make large and tempting inducements for him 
to remain in a life of business. But his determined purpose, 
seconded by the persuasive counsels of his mother, prevailed, 
and the village pastor was engaged to direct his preparations 
for college. 

In the year 1813, he was admitted Freshman at Yale, taking 
rank from the first with the best scholars of his class. He had 
not, however, been enjoying these congenial pursuits longer 
than six months, when a reverse in the family fortunes threw 
a dark cloud upon his prospects. After a severe conflict 
between the claims of filial duty and that love of learning 
which became the master passion of his life, he at length 
resolved to reconcile both by devoting to them both the pro- 
ceeds of his labour as a teacher of youth during the intervals 
of study. To the necessities and struggles of this period, as 
well as to original disposition, he no doubt owed the formation 
of those habits of untiring industry, perseverance, and system, 
which characterized his whole subsequent career, and were the 
foundation of his success and usefulness; and so proficient 
did he become in this school of blended trial and study, that 
he not only maintained his academic standing, but digressed 
into some medical studies outside of the course, and graduated 
with the Berkleian prize, and at but one remove from the 
highest honours of his class. 

His first deep religious convictions seem to have been 
received during his college life ; but, though observant of out- 
ward church duties, and for a period superintendent in a 
Sabbath-school, he did not until some years afterwards make 
a public profession of his faith. 



MEMOIR. 27 

Among the life-long friends he made while at New Haven 
was the late Judge Bristol, with whom he commenced the legal 
studies, afterwards finished at the Law School in Litchfield. 

The family having removed to Wilkesbarre, Pennsylvania, 
he joined them there, on the completion of his education; but, 
after meeting with new embarrassments, at length removed to 
Easton, and established himself in the practice of his profes- 
sion. He is remembered in that town by families in which 
he was always a welcome visitor, and also for the influence he 
exerted through the community in promoting literary tastes, 
and sound morals. It was there, too, that he first publicly 
united with the church, and entered with new interest and 
success into religious labours. 

In the year 1831, June 14th, at Philadelphia, he was mar- 
ried to Miss Eliza P. Sparhawk. Of their six children, two 
only are living. His home was always the central sphere of 
his life, to which he devoted his most assiduous cares, and 
which he adorned with the virtues of the primitive household 
of faith. 

While at Easton he rose rapidly at the bar, acquiring a 
reputation for learning and ability. Having been appointed 
by the Governor of Pennsylvania one of three Commissioners to 
revise the laws of the State, he came frequently to Philadelphia 
to meet his colleagues; and at length, after having declined 
several other proffers of judicial position, he accepted that 
which brought him to Philadelphia, and ultimately established 
him as President Judge of one of its Courts. From this post he 
was called to the Presidency of Grirard College, and during the 
brief term of his incumbency, impressed upon that Institution, 
then in its formation, a marked and salutary influence. On re- 
signing this position he was elected Mayor of the city of Phila- 
delphia, from which office he retired to active private life, and was 
pursuing with all his early zeal his professional labours, church 
duties, and favourite studies, when it became sadly evident that 
his physical system, so long overtaxed by incessant mental 
application, was beginning to yield to fatal disease. Having 
reluctantly abated his labours and submitted to the necessary 
retirement and quiet of an invalid, after a severe and painful 
illness, he at length passed away from the bosom of his family- 
circle and friends, while in the full possession of his faculties, 
and with an assured hope of glory. The event occurred in 
Philadelphia, February 3, 1860. It was noticed by the daily 
newspaper press with sketches of his public life and services, 
and the funeral solemnities, conducted in the Second Presby- 
terian Church, were attended by a concourse in which the 
learned professions were largely represented. 

In attempting to estimate a character tested by such varied 



28 MEMOIR. 

positions and relations, we cannot but be struck with its steady 
truthfulness, unity, and harmony. 

As a public man, Judge Jones has left a reputation of 
almost singular value. He was, doubtless, too much of a 
scholar, and too little inclined by his retiring habits, his reli- 
gious tastes and principles, to adopt congenially much of the 
routine which has become essential to a successful politician. 
Yet, he never held an office or discharged a trust in which he 
was found wanting in any of the moral qualifications of pro- 
bity, discretion, and true solicitude for the public welfare ; and 
if his political friends and adversaries alike found it impossible 
to draw him into some of the current arts of partisanship, he 
certainly did not forfeit their respect by his strict adherence to 
duty, right, and principle. 

As a jurist, his peculiar excellence is too much a matter of 
professional appreciation, to admit of extended notice in these 
reflections. His pupils and associates hastened to bear testi- 
mony to his uniform official courtesy and propriety, to his 
accurate habits of thought and expression, to his severe dis- 
crimination, to his sound practical judgment, to the value of 
his judicial decisions, his legal consultations and opinions, 
and to his thorough mastery of the whole philosophy, litera- 
ture, and practice of jurisprudence. 

As a church officer he left vacancies lamented alike for the 
personal intercourse and judicious counsel which they termi- 
nated. In the various ecclesiastical Boards, of which he was 
an active and punctual member, his literary and legal opinions, 
always freely bestowed, were invaluable. In the church, 
of which for several years he was a ruling elder, his charac- 
teristics were fidelity, humility, conscientiousness, an edify- 
ing fervour and unction, and a blameless and holy life. The 
prayer-circle found him always at his post; and while leading 
its devotions, with his rich scriptural phraseology drawn from a 
heart imbued with the mind of the Spirit, and alike removed 
from the language of literature or of conversation, the scholar 
and the lawyer for the time so wholly disappeared in the hum- 
ble Christian, that the lowliest listener found himself in sym- 
pathy. His familiar presence will long be missed from the 
scene of worship, whither he came with such regularity, and at 
each returning communion so devoutly ministered at the table 
of his Master. 

But it was as a trained and ripe scholar that he impressed 
himself most obviously and characteristically upon the casual 
observer. Though no trace of pedantry tinged his ordinary 
intercourse, yet it was impossible not to see that his stores of 
learning were indeed vast — that his erudition was accurate, 
profound, and extensive; involving solid acquirements rather 



MEMOIR. 29 

than the more graceful accomplishments. Both fitted and 
inclined by nature for severe studies, he had furnished himself 
with the aids of two libraries — the one enriched with treasures 
of divinity, and the other not less remarkable in the depart- 
ment of his profession; and joining to these appliances a 
thorough mastery of ancient and modern languages, he entered 
and traversed the whole field of human learning, until there 
was scarcely a recess left unvisited. 

In jurisprudence, his acquirements have been described as 
exhaustive. He was " conversant not only with the English 
common law, but with the civil law of Rome and the modern 
European systems. The compilations of Justinian were no less 
familiar to him as objects of study than the Commentaries of 
Coke. Indeed, from his taste for antiquities and for compara- 
tive jurisprudence, he was not only peculiarly qualified but 
intellectually inclined to explore the doctrines of the law to 
their historical sources, and gather around them, in tracing 
their development, all the accessories which history and learn- 
ing could supply. This was to him a loving labour — for he 
regarded the law as a lofty science, and its practice as the 
application of ethical principles by a trained logic." And he 
has adorned the literature of his profession with productions 
that will remain as monuments of his learning and industry. 

In theology, his attainments were, perhaps, even more varied 
and remarkable. He was closely familiar with the versions of 
the original Hebrew and Greek Seripture's, with the early 
Christian fathers, with the' writings of the scholastic theolo- 
gians and of the English divines, particularly those of the 
Westminster Assembly; and if he neglected the modern Ger- 
man theology, it was more from a spiritual distaste for some of 
its remote tendencies than from any want of preparation for 
its acquisition. Into the rarely explored fields of Rabbinical 
literature, both ancient and modern, he had so extensively 
penetrated as to have acquired a European reputation ; while 
in the literature and history of the Millennarian controversy, 
which he made a speciality, he was without a superior in this 
or any country. His collection of books upon the subject, it is 
believed, is unequalled. He brought to the prophetical Scrip- 
tures his legal habits of interpretation, and, by an original 
exegesis, had constructed upon the basis of the orthodox 
theology a doctrine of the futurities of Christianity, which was 
not a mere theory, but inwrought with his whole personal expe- 
rience. The second coming of Christ, as ever imminent, was 
with him a belief that imparted a glow to his whole piety, 
swayed his daily conduct, and invested his life with an habitual, 
though cheerful, solemnity. 

In philology, he had made himself master of the Oriental, 



30 MEMOIR. 

classical, and modern languages. He had a linguistic taste 
and tact, which made such acquisitions a pastime rather than a 
drudgery. 

As a well-read lawyer, a writer and a thinker, a linguist, a 
theologian, a biblical critic, he could have taken rank with the 
most eminent. His attainments in divinity were so peculiar in 
one not trained for the pulpit as to have occasioned the remark 
at his funeral: "But yesterday the scholars of the Church were 
gathered at the grave of its most learned clergyman* — there 
are those present who will deem it no exaggeration to say, that 
to-day we are burying its most learned layman." 

The only regret that can be felt in view of such immense 
knowledge is, that it must perish from among us without ade- 
quate memorial; and that, with the exception of a few anony- 
mous contributions to periodical literature, and an occasional 
volume for the instruction of youth, he has so wronged by his 
modesty his reputation and usefulness. f 

It was this ardent love of learning for its own sake, and 
almost without conscious regard to its uses and advantages, 
which, fed by long indulgence, had become an absorbing 
passion, and even threatened to verge into a besetting in- 
firmity. It showed itself in a desire for the accumulation of 
curious volumes and ancient editions, and for the acquisition of 
extinct languages. A rare old book, if it could be procured at 
any sacrifice short of a principle, was a temptation it was 
simply impossible for him to resist. He expended large sums 
upon his theological library. 

His heart warmed, as with instinctive sympathy, toward 
needy scholars and struggling students, who, on applying to 
him, were always sure of a welcome and a helping hand. He 
lived the life of a student, amid the bustle of a great city and 
under the rigorous claims of a laborious profession, and was 
never happier than when secluded from the world among his 
treasured books, or discoursing to a congenial friend on his 
favourite views in theology. 

* Rev. J. Addison Alexander, D. D. 

f Of his theological publications, the following may now be mentioned as the 
most prominent: 

Articles in the Princeton Review on Protestantism ; in the Baltimore Literary 
and Religious Magazine, and the Spirit of the Nineteenth Century ; and in the 
Jewish Chronicle, over the signature of "Azor;" "Review of the Discussion 
between Bishop Hughes and Dr. John Breckinridge ;" "Notes on Scripture,'" over 
the signature of "Philo," in the Theological and Literary Journal, embracing 
a continuous commentary upon the Gospel history. 

" The Story of Joseph, or the Patriarchal Age" 

He also translated from the French, with original notes, " Outlines of a 
History of the Court of Rome, and of the Temporal Power of the Popes," and 
edited and caused to be published " The Literalist," in 5 vols. 8vo, adding a 
treatise of his own, entitled "Essays on the Kingdom of God" by "Philo- 
Basilicus." 



MEMOIR. 31 

And yet, with all his learning, he was still content to be a 
pupil in the school of godliness, and a scholar at the feet of 
Jesus. Without pedantry, without intellectual pride, without 
sophistry, or scepticism, or vain philosophy, he preserved the 
humility and simplicity of a lowly disciple through all the temp- 
tations of learned investigation, and would have esteemed it the 
most precious of privileges to have been . permitted to devote 
himself exclusively to sacred and scriptural studies. A new 
view of a familiar text, or solution of a difficult passage, 
delighted him more than any other intellectual' acquisition; 
and though he brought to such researches all the irksome 
appliances of grammar, lexicon, and concordance, comparison 
of versions and citation of authorities, yet his reverence for the 
original as an actual Divine utterance, made the exercise devo- 
tional as well as critical, and had become so much the habit of 
his mind when quoting scriptural phrases, that even his dying 
protestations were interspersed with exegetical allusions. He 
regarded his commentaries as the most valuable labour of his 
life. Will they not also remain as his most fitting monument? 

If we turn away from these more public actions and visible 
traits which make up his ordinary reputation, and penetrate 
into his private life and experience, we find ourselves in pres- 
ence of a character which cannot be appreciated from any 
mere description — it was so simple, equable, and pure. It 
was the true gentle heart of a child masked under the gravity 
of a sage, and expressing itself in a blended kindness and 
decorum which had the grace of truth itself, and was utterly 
lost upon all who could not come within the circle of his 
spiritual sympathies. Though unassuming, he was still content 
with himself in any human presence. He was incapable of 
pretence or guile, and shunned display. 

But it was his deep and fervent piety which formed his 
crowning characteristic. This was of a type growing rare in 
these days of busy philanthropy and religious dissipation. 
It partook of his quiet, undemonstrative nature — was an 
intensely individual sentiment engrafted upon a deeply rever- 
ential and trustful disposition — had been chastened by severe 
bereavements, of which he could never speak without emotion, 
and rigorously trained in daily duty, until it became the ever 
ascendant power of the soul. 'Religion in him had acquired 
the permanence of a habit and the force of a regulating prin- 
ciple. It pervaded his whole character and life, and was 
carried by him into every position and all occasions — not as 
a profession, but because he could not do otherwise; and even 
in the most worldly associations, though never obtruded, still 
made itself felt with his very presence as an atmosphere of 
holiness and a rebuke to sin. All knew that he was a godly 



32 MEMOIR. 

man, though no expression of mere personal experience was 
ever allowed to escape his lips. 

It was only when disease and the prospect of death invaded 
his characteristic reserve and equanimity, that his secret walk 
with God began to reveal itself with a richness, a tenderness 
and beauty, that surprised even his most familiar friends. His 
spirit seemed lingering as upon the very borders of heaven. His 
heart was full of Christian love toward all who approached him. 
To his relatives, his friends, his pastor, his fellow-members of 
the session, he sent messages of kindly counsel and affection. 

His only expressed anxiety to live was, that he might com- 
plete some Scripture studies in which he hoped to embody the 
matured results of his investigation of Divine truth. Between 
this holy solicitude and the commencing appreciation of the 
glory shortly to be revealed, he wavered, like the Apostle, in a 
strait between two — willing to remain, yet having the desire to 
depart and be with Christ, which is far better. Once, while 
weighing this latter event as probable, he suddenly exclaimed, 
with an eye scanning unblenched the whole dread futurity, 
"Blessed Saviour! do I not love thee? Show me thy glory." 

But it would be trespassing upon the privacies of a home 
so lately bereft of his presence, to enlarge upon those sacred 
moments. It was a death-bed around which was shadowed no 
terror. Such unclouded tranquillity, such perfect assurance, 
such strong intelligent faith, such humility, trustfulness, and 
tender affection, such glimpses of the heavenly glory, made it 
like the exit of a saint of the olden times of our faith ; and 
when at length the bodily pulse began to wane, the beatific 
vision so grew upon his spirit as to swallow up all earthly 
interests and affections, and even illumine the clouds of 
physical anguish with the prophetic light of that broken utter- 
ance — the last ever breathed from his lips on earth — "A far 
more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. 1 ' An hour of 
placid breathing succeeded, during which he sank to rest so 
peacefully, that the practised eye of his physician alone de- 
tected the moment of departure. 

How the light of heaven falls in holy tranquillity upon the 
couch of the dying believer! What a deep, rich calm there 
ensues upon the turmoil of life and the pains of parting and 
dissolution! We would not disturb it with one murmur of 
repining; and though life for a while must seem impoverished, 
and the earth vacant and lonely, yet we soon learn to thank 
God for the grace illustrated in the life and death of his ser- 
vants, and for one more proof that, even in this sinful world, 
true virtue shall not lose its reward. 

c. w. s. 

Philadelphia, December, 1860. 



NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 



CHAPTER I. 

Genealogy of Jesus. — Form of Government appointed for the tribes of Israel and 
for the land God gave them. — Connection between the representation of Jere- 
miah xxxi. 15, and the massacre of the children of Bethlehem by Herod. 

Matthew i. 1. " The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, 
the son of David, the son of Abraham," which may be para- 
phrased thus : The table of the genealogy of Jesus, who is the 
Christ, that great King in whom the covenants God made with 
Abraham and David met and were fulfilled. This title is not 
confined to the first seventeen verses. It extends to the whole 
chapter. 

The design of the Evangelists in composing the Gospels was 
to prove that Jesus of Nazareth, whom the Jews had just 
before rejected and put to death, Acts ii. 36, is the Christ, the 
Son of God, Luke i. 4. The Evangelist John expressly de- 
clares this as his motive, xx. 31 ; and Matthew virtually does 
so in this verse. Had it been his object merely to deduce the 
pedigree of the Lord Jesus, he would not have connected his 
name immediately with the names of David and Abraham, nor 
would he have given him, in this place, the title of Christ, or 
king. It would have been sufficient to say: The book of the 
generation of Jesus — Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat 
Jacob, &c. 

To prove that Jesus is the Christ, it was necessary to show 
his descent from David, Matt. xxii. 42. Had he descended 
from Levi, he might have been a priest, but not the Christ, 
Heb. vii. 14. Hence the words, " son of David," denote the 
first proof, or order of proof, of the Messiahship of Jesus, and 
were added for that reason. But why add also, "the son of 
Abraham?" This was implied in his being the son of David, 
5 



34 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

for David descended from Abraham. And why did the Evan- 
gelist not add, "the son of Shem," or some other earlier 
ancestor of David ? see Luke iii. 34 — 38. The answer to both 
these questions is : the former were necessary to state fully the 
Evangelist's design in composing the gospel, the latter would 
have been superfluous. 

This will appear, if we reflect that the Christ was the seed 
especially promised to Abraham, Rom. ix. 7; Gal. iii. 16, 19, 
although afterwards promised to David under new relations. 
In other words, the two great covenants, viz. the Abrahamic 
and Davidic or royal covenant, both met and were fulfilled in 
the person of Jesus. Hence, we infer that' the Evangelist's 
design in the first verse of the gospel was to propound, for the 
consideration of his readers, Jesus as the seed of these two 
great national covenants. The effect of these additions to the 
proper personal name of our Lord, then, is to circumscribe and 
define the subject he proposed to treat, as if the Evangelist had 
said, " I propose to write the history of Jesus of Nazareth, who 
is the seed first covenanted to Abraham, and afterwards to 
David, and therefore, the Messiah or Christ." 

The table of pedigree is then immediately added as the first 
proof of this proposition. This was a necessary, but not of itself 
a complete proof. Joseph, the husband of Mary, was a descend- 
ant of both David and Abraham, Matt. i. 20, yet not the 
Christ. To complete the proof, therefore, the Evangelist, as he 
proceeds, introduces, in logical order, other facts, which serve 
not only to discriminate Jesus from every other descendant of 
David, but to evince the truth of his proposition boyond a rea- 
sonable doubt. In general terms they may be stated thus: 
1. The human genealogy of the Lord Jesus. 2. His divine 
generation, i. 19. 3. Extraordinary public events which 
occurred about the time of his birth, and the effect they had 
upon the mind of the king of Judea, chap. ii. 1, 2, 3 — 9, 16. 

4. The ministry and testimony of John the Baptist, chap. iii. 

5. The miracles of the Lord Jesus, many of which are recorded 
to show that they were just such works as the prophets fore- 
told Messiah should perform, iv. 23, 25. 6. The divine eleva- 
tion and purity of his doctrine, chap. v. — vii. 7. The manner 
of his death, xxvii. 50, 54. 8. His resurrection, chap, xxviii. 

Some authors, as Whiston, suppose that the first portion of 
this gospel, as far as chap. xiv. 12, has been greatly disar- 
ranged. Others even call in question the authenticity of the first 
two chapters. See Bowyer's Conjectures on Matt. iii. 

The foregoing observations furnish sufficient grounds of dis- 
sent from all such surmises. The matters contained in the 
gospel are logically arranged with a view to prove the proposi- 



GENEALOGY OF JESUS. 35 

tion contained in the first verse, which, as before explained, 
was not only the most important, but, in view of the sin and 
folly of rejecting him, appalling to the nation. Had Pilate 
written over the cross, " This is Jesus, the son of David, the 
son of Abraham, the king of the Jews," it would have been 
much more offensive to the priests than the one he actually 
wrote ; for it would have charged them with rejecting and put- 
ting to death that great deliverer and king, sent to them in 
fulfilment of those Divine promises, which were the most pre- 
cious inheritance of the nation. 

We regard this gospel as intended specially for Jews. It 
begins abruptly. It takes for granted that the readers are 
well acquainted with Jewish history. It was probably written 
in Hebrew and Greek by the Evangelist himself. See a Tract 
by Dr. Tregelles on this question. It is not improbable that 
many authentic gospels were composed for the use of that peo- 
ple by inspired men, which may have been, and probably were, 
written in the Hebrew, or the vernacular dialect of the coun- 
try; and that to such the Evangelist Luke refers in the first 
verse of his gospel, Luke 1. 1. If so, it was a gracious provi- 
sion for that people, suited to the exigency of their times and 
condition as a nation, and quite in accordance with the reason 
of the injunction our Lord gave to his apostles, Luke xxiv. 47, 
"beginning at Jerusalem." See notes on Acts iii. 19 — 21. 
Their time was short. The gospel must be made known to 
them by writings and by preaching soon, or it would be too 
late. Other nations could wait, as their times were to be pro- 
longed. If, then, we suppose the gospels referred to by Luke 
were like this gospel of Matthew, written in Greek or Hebrew, 
or both, we can account for their loss by supposing they had 
served their special purpose when the nation was destroyed, and 
the people dispersed. This gospel of Matthew, however, was 
preserved for the instruction of the Gentile church. See 
Whitby and Doddridge on Luke i. 1. Also Clark and Town- 
send, at the same place. 

Matt. I. 2. "Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, 
and Jacob begat Judas, and his brethren." 

We observe that neither Ishmael nor Esau is included in the 
enumeration. It is true they were not ancestors of Jesus, nor 
were the brethren of Judas. This is a sufficient reason why 
their names should not be included in a table of pedigree, as 
such. Yet, as the Evangelist has respect to the Abrahamic 
covenant, it was important to refer generally to all the sons of 
Jacob, because they were embraced by it, and he does so. For 
the same reason Zara is mentioned, verse 3. But no allusion 
is made to the other sons of Abraham or Isaac, because they 



36 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

were to be numbered among the Gentiles, Rom. ix. 7 ; Gal. 
iv. 22. 

Matt. i. 6. "And Jesse begat David the king, and David 
the king begat Solomon" — not Solomon the king. 

Both the addition and the omission are significant. It was 
not to give greater honour to David than to Solomon that this 
distinction was made: Solomon was as truly a king as David, 
and his reign was even more glorious. See Matt. vi. 29. 
There is an allusion here to the royal covenant or the covenant 
of the kingdom, which God made with David, of which we have 
an account in 2 Sam. vii. 12, 18 — 29; 1 Chron. xvii. 17. To 
the same covenant, the angel Gabriel refers in his address to 
Mary. Luke i. 32, 33. 

There is, perhaps, also an allusion to the typical relation of 
David to the Messiah. The mercies of David were made sure 
by covenant, Isaiah iv. 3; Acts viii. 34. They were not 
like Adam's, Gen. ii. 17, and Saul's, liable to forfeiture by dis- 
obedience, 1 Sam. xiii. 13, 14; xvi. 1; 2 Sam. vii. 14, 15. 
No other king of Israel was ever the object of so great conde- 
scension and grace as David. He was not only king by divine 
right — a type of the second Adam, but an everlasting kingdom 
is made sure to him and his seed, that is Christ, Dan. vii. 13, 
14, who is the second Adam. See notes on Matt. ix. 6. 

The meaning of the Evangelist, then, may be thus para- 
phrased: "And Jesse begat David, that king to whom and to 
whose seed the kingdom was made sure and perpetual by the 
covenant of God with him." 

Matt. i. 12. "And after they were brought to Babylon, 
Jechonias," &c, and verse 17, last clause. 

The Evangelist mentions the carrying away of the tribes of 
Judah and Benjamin to Babylon, but says nothing of their 
return from this captivity. The reason is, neither these nor 
the ten tribes which had previously been carried into captivity, 
had been restored in the sense of the covenant. God had 
promised Abraham to make him the father of an innumerable 
posterity, the father of nations, the father of kings. He had 
promised to give him a country for his posterity to dwell in, 
even the land of Canaan. He had also promised him his 
blessing and protection against enemies, and great renown; also 
to make him the means of blessing the whole world. And all 
these promises God had made sure to him and his seed for ever 
by an oath. See Gen. xii. 1, 3; xiii. 14 — 17; xv. 5; xvii. 3 — 8; 
xviii. 18; xxii. 17, 18; Rom. iv. 13. These promises were 
afterwards renewed and confirmed to Isaac, Gen. xxvi. 1 — 5 ; 
xxviii. 4, 29, and to Jacob, Gen. xxviii. 13, 15; xxxv. 11, 12; 
xlvi. 3. 



GENEALOGY OF JESUS. 37 

The Jews, for whom this Evangelist especially wrote, were 
sensible that these great and glorious promises had never been 
fulfilled. The ten tribes were carried into captivity, B. c. 721, 
and had never returned. The two other tribes were carried 
into captivity B. c. 606, and very few of them comparatively 
afterwards returned. The Samaritans, a mongrel race, pos- 
sessed the central parts of the land of Canaan, and the descend- 
ants of the returned Jews were subject to the Romans, and 
obliged to submit to the arbitrary decrees of that heathen 
power. They had not in fact been an independent people at 
any time, after their captivity B. c. 606, except about forty 
years, and during that time they were under princes not of the 
tribe of Judah, but of Levi. 

The nation's hope even at that time was centred in the 
expected Messiah or Christ. None expected deliverance till 
he should come ; but with his coming, the nation expected the 
realization of God's covenants with Abraham and David, 
Luke i. 71; ii. 26, 3.0, 33; Acts i. 6. 

What particulars were included in the nation's hope, may be 
learned from 2 Sam. vii. and 1 Chron. xvii. The whole of 
these chapters should be carefully considered. We select only 
a few verses: "Moreover I will appoint a place for my people 
Israel, and will plant them, that they may divell in a place of 
their own, and move no more, neither shall the children of 
wickedness afflict them any more as beforetime ; also the Lord 
telleth thee, that he will make thee a house, and when thy days 
be fulfilled, &c. I will set up thy seed after thee, &c, and I 
will establish his kingdom, &c. ... I will establish the 
throne of his kingdom for ever, and thine house and thy 
kingdom shall be established for ever before thee." 2 Sam. 
vii. 10, 11, 16; 1 Chron. xvii. 9, 11, 12, 14. How then could 
the Evangelist speak of a return from Babylon? To have done 
so, would have done violence to the nation's hopes as well as to 
the terms of these covenants. 

Some authors, however, maintain that portions of all the 
tribes did return from their captivity, and that therefore the 
prophecies relating to the restoration of Israel, may be con- 
sidered as fulfilled. It is not the purpose at this time to 
consider these prophecies. The subject comes up in connec- 
tion with God's covenants, with which no doubt the prophecies 
correspond. It is undeniable, however, that the Evangelist 
makes no mention of any restoration, although he might easily 
have done so if such were the fact, in the 12th verse — "And 
(after the return from Babylon,) Zorobabel begat," &c, or 
" Abiud begat," &c, as the fact might be. Josephus the his- 



38 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

torian (Antiq. book ii. chap. 5, § 2) evidently supposed that the 
ten tribes remained in captivity when he wrote; and the same 
appears to have been the belief of his countrymen, John vii. 
35; James i. 1; Acts xxvi. 7. Had there been a restoration 
in the sense of the covenants, and consequently of the pro- 
phecies also, it is probable the Evangelist would have noted it 
as he did the captivity, or he would have omitted both, espe- 
cially as the fact of a captivity had no necessary connection 
with the pedigree of our Lord, but only with the covenants 
which were to be fulfilled by him. If we had no means of 
information but this chapter, we might infer that not only 
Salathiel, but all those whose names follow his, were begotten 
in captivity at Babylon. 

Matt. i. 16 "of whom was born Jesus" — ig qc, 

iyevvrjOrj Iqaout;. 

The marginal translation of yevvrjOev in v. 20, is begotten, 
which is preferable to born. In the same sense should the 
word yeuucojusuop in Luke i. 35, and the word iyewrjdv], in this 
place be rendered. In the previous parts of this chapter the 
word iyevwjae is used in the causative or Hiphil sense (*rbin.) 
Here the word, without change of tense, is converted into the 
passive form, without any intimation in the context of any 
other change of the sense. It is simply a change of construc- 
tion made necessary by the divine generation of Jesus, which 
the Evangelist proceeds immediately to explain. 

Had not our Lord been divine as well as human, no change 
of phraseology would have been necessary. The evangelist 
would have continued Icoar^ oe sysvvyae top 'frjGouv top hyofiepop 
Xptorov, and this would have been in accordance with the 
Jewish notion of the promised Messiah, and with the heresy 
of Cerinthus. The nation believed that the promised Christ 
would be a mere man, who, by God's favour and blessing, 
would accomplish their deliverance. The Evangelist here 
corrects that mistake. Yet it was necessary that Jesus should 
be the son of Joseph as well as the son of God, Mark i. 1, in 
the proper and strict sense of the word. If not, the table of 
pedigree was superfluous — in fact, would prove nothing, by 
reason of its failure to connect Jesus with the ancestry of 
Joseph. He was, therefore, not merely born of Mary, but 
begotten of her by the Holy Ghost, yet made really and truly 
the son of Joseph by divine covenant, for the transaction re- 
corded in verses 20 and 21 amounts to a covenant between God 
and Joseph. As the creator of Joseph and Mary, of David 
and Abraham, it was not possible that he should filiate himself 
to either in any other way. He took to himself the body 



GENEALOGY OF JESUS. 39 

which was born of Mary,* that is, his Divine power was active 
in the generation or formation of that body, which, in the 
execution of the covenant, he committed for a time to their 
joint care and custody; each performing in the order of nature 
their appropriate offices. Said the angel to Mary, Luke i. 35, 
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the 
Highest shall overshadow thee, and therefore shall that Holy 
(being) which shall be (yswaj/isvou) begotten of theef be called 
the Son of God — that is, he shall be called the Son of God, 
not because he was born of Mary, but because he was begotten 
by God the Holy Ghost. See Mark i. 1. 

According to this view, the word ysvvywt; in verse 18, or 
rather feveac^, which is the true reading, should be rendered 
generation. This sense accords with the following verses, 
20 — 23. The Evangelist is not speaking in this place of the 
birth of Jesus. Indeed, he nowhere records the time and 
circumstances of his birth, as Luke does, but merely adverts 
to the fact and place of his „ birth, in the first verse of the 
second chapter, which (as we may infer from chapter i. 25) 
did not occur till some time after the events recorded in 
verses 18 — 21. 

It may be added, that Beza translates this word in Matt. i. 16, 
20, and in John iii. 3, 6, 7, by gigno, not nascor. See also 
Sebast. Schmidt's translation. 

Matt. i. 23. "And they shall call his name Emman- 
uel," &c. 

The framework of this chapter rests, so to speak, upon the 
names Jesus (Saviour, verse 22,) Immanuel (God with us,) 
and the appellative descriptions, the son of David (the heir or 
seed of the covenant of the kingdom, Luke i. 31 — 32,) the son 
of Abraham (the heir of the world, Romans iv. 13, or the 
seed in whom all nations should be blessed, Galatians iii. 8.) 
The chief object of the Evangelist was, at the beginning of the 
gospel, to propound or set forth Jesus, the great subject of 
the gospel, in these four relations. The whole Bible is little, 

* "Quaeritur num massa, ex qua Christus progenitus est, in utero Marise a 
peccato fuerit praeservata an purificata, aut noviter creata," &c. (Walchii 
Mis. Sac.) We regard all such inquiries as irreverent. We can know nothing 
more about God's mysterious ways and workings than the Scriptures teach us. 
The incarnation was an act of creative power ; above the order of nature, and 
out of the sphere of natural causes. Who can explain to us how the human 
soul and the divine nature of our Lord became incarnate a second time in the 
dead body of Jesus in the tomb of Joseph ! Such acts of divine power are too 
wonderful for us to explain. We should receive them as facts, as we do the 
fact of creation, Hebrews xi. 3. 

f These words, "of thee," are supplied by the translators, though they do 
not appear to be an addition to the text, even in the earliest edition. (1611.) 



40 NOTES ON SCRIPTUKE. 

if anything, more than an expansion of the things involved in 
these relations. 

The word Immanuel occurs in the New Testament only in 
this place. We infer, from the manner in which the Evan- 
gelist employs the word, and the event with which he connects 
it, that it is a name assumed to denote the incarnate relation 
of Jehovah to his people. Before the incarnation, Jehovah was 
Eloah, or Elohim, to the seed of Israel, see 1 Kings xviii. 21, 
39, (Hebrew text,) a distinction, however, which Elias Hutter, 
in his Hebrew version of the New Testament, and his revisers, 
have not observed, as perhaps they ought to have done in 
rendering Hebrews xi. 16. By incarnation, Jehovah assumed 
a new relation to the fallen race of man, viz. that contem- 
plated in the covenant of redemption. In this new relation 
he became the seed of David, the heir of the throne of David, 
Acts ii. 31; the heir of the world, Dan. vii. 14. As Jehovah 
and Creator, he is the Lord of the universe, as Son of man, 
(Ben Adam Ps. viii.) he is the Lord of the world, Deut. x. 14; 
Psalm xxiv. 1 ; 1 Cor. x. 26, 28. As Immanuel, he has a 
land* especially his own, Ezek. xxxviii. 16 — 21; having a 
defined length and breadth. It is the land which Isaiah pro- 
phesied would be overrun by the king of Assyria, Isa. viii. 8. 
He has a people also as well as a kingdom of defined limits, 
John i. 11. El<; ra I'dca rjWe xat of Idcot aurbv ou napklaftov. 
This land is the land given to Abraham and his seed by cove- 
nant, Genesis xiii. 14, 15; xii. 7. Of this covenant the 
Evangelist had already reminded his readers, in the first verse 
of the gospel, in a manner well calculated to suggest to an 
intelligent Jew of his own day, how great were the sin and 
folly of their rulers in rejecting Jesus, in whom alone, any of 
the blessings of this covenant could be fulfilled. 

We sometimes hear devout persons invoke God's blessing 
on their country, in terms expressive of the relation which 
the Lord (Jehovah) assumed by his incarnation to the elect 
Israel and the land especially included in the Abrahamic 
covenant — "Make this land" (meaning their own country,) 
"Immanuel's land," or similar expressions. We doubt not 
that such petitions, devoutly uttered, may be answered, but not 
according to the letter, Isaiah viii. 8. 

The Evangelist quotes in this place, Isaiah vii. 14, where the 
name first occurs in the Old Testament. It occurs also in 

* It is to be observed that the property in the soil of Canaan, God expressly 
reserved to himself. " The land shall not be sold forever: for the land is mine: 
Ye are strangers and sojourners with me." Leviticus xxv. 23. That is, the 
Israelites were to be mere occupants, not the proprietors of the land. Comp. 
John i. 11. Original Greek. 



GENEALOGY OF JESUS. 41 

Isaiah viii. 8, 10. The LXX. translate it in both these places 
//£#' -fjficov b deo$. So does John David Michaelis. The Vulgate, 
Sebast. Schmidt, Castalio, Diodati, and the authorized English 
Version, transfer the word in viii. 8, as a proper name, and 
translate it in the tenth verse. Luther, Stier, and Theile trans- 
late the tenth verse, denn hier ist Immanuel, because Immanuel 
is here. Regarded as a proper name, and we may so regard 
it in all these places, the last clause of the tenth verse may be 
shortly expressed, " because of Immanuel," and the meaning 
of the whole verse would be, The counsel of the confederated 
enemies of Immanuel's land, the land of the covenant, should 
come to naught, and their word should not stand because of 
Immanuel. It is his land. See Glassius Phil. Sac. p. 1066, 7, 
and David Martin's (French version) Comm. on Isaiah viii. 8. 
But the full explanation of this name is given by the Evangelist, 
John i. 1—14. 

Matt. i. 24. " Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as 
the angel of the Lord had bidden him," &c. 

If we were to inquire, "How could Christ, being the Son of 
God, become man?" it might be answered: By his creating for 
himself a true body and a reasonable soul, as he did for Adam, 
our first parent, and by then uniting to it his divine nature, so 
as to form one person. But had he adopted this method, he 
would not have been of our race, nor could he have been the 
promised seed of the woman, whose office it would be to crush 
the serpent's head. If we inquire again, " How did Christ, 
being the Son of God, become man?" it might be answered, by 
his taking to himself a true body and a reasonable soul, in the 
race of man, and entering into the family of man, according to 
the order of nature which he himself had established. In this 
way, he did become a member of the human family, and the 
promised seed of the woman. But if we inquire again, " How 
could Christ, being the Son of God, become the son of Joseph?" 
it may be answered : — in the same way that he could become 
the son of David, or the son of Abraham, Matt. i. 1. The 
difficulty in either case is precisely that with which our Lord 
pressed the Pharisees, Matt. xxii. 42, 45, when he inquired of 
them, "What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he?" In 
Rev. xxii. 16, he says of himself, "I am the root of David," 
that is, David as truly sprung from me as the tree grows up 
from its root. He adds, "I am the offspring of David," that 
is, I sprung from David as truly as the branch shoots off from 
the trunk of a tree. But how can this be? ' He was David's 
Lord, because he created him. He was David's son, because 
he graciously covenanted with David that he would take to 
himself the human nature in his race. He was Joseph's son, 
6 



42 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

because he selected the family of Joseph as that in which he 
would fulfil his covenant with David and Abraham. He was as 
truly, and in the same sense, the son of Joseph, as he was of 
David or Abraham. The cause or reason of his being the son 
of either was his sovereign purpose and promise to put himself 
in that relation. It may be objected that by son, Matt. i. 1, 
we must understand descendant, and thus understood, we may 
with strict accuracy say, he descended from Abraham and 
David through Mary, not through Joseph. But the word 
descendant creates the same difficulties as the word son, under- 
stood in the sense of an immediate descendant. For, how, we may 
inquire as before, could Christ, being the Son of God, become 
a descendant of David, or of Abraham, or of Adam, or of Eve, 
or of Mary? The answer must be the same as that already 
given. It may be objected again, that we find express cove- 
nants with Abraham and David to this intent, but none of like 
nature or import with Joseph. To this objection we reply, the 
transaction with Joseph recorded in verses 20, 21, and 24, 
amounts to a covenant. "Joseph did as the angel of the Lord 
had bidden him." See chap. ii. 13, 14, 19, 20—23. 

Matt. I. 18 — 25. From what has been said it sufficiently 
appears that these verses really form a part of the table of 
pedigree. The Evangelist had shown the descent from Abraham 
to Joseph, the husband of Mary ; naming the father who begat 
and the son begotten. In the 16th verse, he changes the 
phraseology. He says not that Joseph begat Jesus, but simply 
that Joseph was the husband of Mary, of whom Jesus was 
begotten. Here, then, is an omission which must be supplied. 
Had the table stopped here, the reader might have inquired who 
begat Jesus ? Anticipating this inquiry, the Evangelist answers, 
"the Holy Ghost." Again it might be inquired, how could 
that be known? This question, also, is anticipated, and the 
answer given, "by divine revelation." The Evangelist then 
proceeds to show that such a revelation was made to Joseph ; 
the manner in which it was made ; and the occasion which led 
to it. He states the facts circumstantially as they occurred, 
doubtless by inspiration, and not upon information received 
either directly or at second hand from Joseph. By this method, 
we are taught incidentally several particulars of great interest 
and importance, which would have been excluded by a concise 
statement of the simple fact of the generation of the human 
person of the Lord Jesus by the Holy Spirit — 7tvvjp.a de b\ytov 
kyEWTjOe zov ' lrjaouv. 

Thus we learn, for example, that his personal name (Jesus) 
was divinely appointed, and that Joseph was commanded to 
call him by that name, Matt. i. 21, as Mary previously had 



GENEALOGY OF JESUS. 43 

been, Luke i. 31. The obedience of Joseph to this, as to other 
commands, gave to the proceeding, as has been suggested, the 
form of a synallagmatic transaction, and the effect of a cove- 
nant. In this way, too, the Evangelist shows how Isa. vii. 
14, which predicts the incarnation, was fulfilled — a prophecy 
quite indefinite in its terms, but made precise by the revelation 
of the angel to Joseph. The prophet says, " Behold, a virgin 
shall conceive," &c. ; but by what power, he does not say ; and 
his words might naturally suggest the inquiry of Mary, Luke 
i. 34, 35. 

The Vulgate translates verse 18, Christi autem generatio sic 
erat. Erasmus preferred this reading, and Mill inclined to it ; 
but Whitby contended for the textus receptus. As the object 
of the Evangelist was to trace the descent of the royal office to 
Jesus, and show his right to it as the Christ or Messiah, we see 
a reason why he should use that designation. But as that was 
his title, not his personal name, it was proper, in this verse, to 
designate him by his personal name rather than by his title ; 
yet not improper to add the title, especially as he had already 
done so in the 16th verse after a 6 ?,£yojuL£uo^. The last word 
in the 25th verse may be regarded as a resuming of the narra- 
tive at verse 16. 

Matt. ii. The first chapter of this gospel — it has been 
suggested — begins with the proposition of the entire book. 
The first proof of it is the genealogy of the Lord Jesus. This 
proof involved the mystery of the incarnation, which, though 
taught in the Old Testament, Ps. ex., was not understood by 
the Pharisees, Matt. xxii. 41, 46, and excluded from the popular 
theology. The Evangelist, therefore, shows how he was the 
Son of God, and also the son of Joseph, and through him the 
heir of David's throne by descent. The Evangelist also con- 
nects with the table of genealogy, as we have seen, the two 
great national covenants, the Abrahamic and Davidic, in which 
all the blessings the nation hoped for or could expect were 
included. 

To the Jewish mind no subject more interesting or important 
could be presented, and to those Jews who still believed that 
Jesus was a deceiver, Matt, xxvii. 63, the addition of the title 
Christ to his name, thereby affirming that he was in truth the 
promised Messiah, and the further additions, " son of David," 
"son of Abraham," thereby affirming that he was that son, or 
descendant of those patriarchs, in whom the great and glorious 
covenants God made with them were to be fulfilled, must have 
been extremely offensive. 

In the second chapter the Evangelist proceeds to the second 
proof of his proposition, which may be called the testimony of 



44 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Herod. The logical connection would be more obvious if the 
Evangelist had marked the transition from his first to the second 
proof somewhat after this method : 

" But je Jews, who still reject Jesus of Nazareth, and still 
persist in saying that the Messiah has not yet appeared, listen 
to the testimony of Herod the Great, one of your own kings, 
the close of whose reign some of you are old enough to remem- 
ber. Herod, indeed, never saw this Jesus, whose history I am 
writing, and knew not his person, yet he firmly believed that 
the promised Messiah was born' during his reign, as is proved 
by the well-remembered visit of the wise men from the East, 
and the proceedings of Herod thereupon." 

Such, it is suggested, is the connection or undercurrent . of 
thought; and thus regarded, the facts recorded in this chapter 
strongly support the leading proposition of the book. As an 
argument, it was peculiarly suited to impress the Jews of that 
day. The atrocities of Herod were well remembered, and some 
who suffered by them were, no doubt, alive when this gospel 
was written, which was probably about eight years after the 
resurrection of Christ. Herod was an unscrupulous and cruel 
prince, as his conduct proved ; but did he act upon insufficient 
grounds, or was he moved by a vain fear ? The grounds upon 
which he acted were public facts — the public appearance of the 
Magi — their public inquiry after the new-born king, &c. The 
force of the argument depends on the weight due to the acts of 
such a government as Herod's. The argument is not in itself 
absolutely conclusive, because Herod, with all the means of 
information his power could command, might have been mis- 
taken ; yet, taken in connection with the other proofs, it 
deserved the serious consideration of the Jews of that day.* 

Matt. ii. 2. "Where is he that is born king of the Jews," 
or rather where is the (6 zey^dec^ ftaotteix;) born king of the Jews, 
q. d. legitimus et naturalis ? H erodes enim factitius tantum 
erat et a, Romanis datus, &c. Hardy's N. T. 

This question of the wise men taxed Herod's dynasty with 
usurpation, and rightly. The legitimate kings of that country 
were of David's race. They were kings jure divino, because 
kings by force of God's covenant with that patriarch, Ps. cxxxii. 
11; Acts ii. 30; 2 Sam. vii. 12—16; 1 Chron. xvii. The last 

* We may quote in this connection a passage from Macrobius touching the 
acts of Herod. Writing of Augustus, lib. 2, cap. 4, he says: "Cum audisset 
inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes rex Judaeorum infra bimatum jussit 
interfici, filium quoque ejus occisum; ait, Melius est Herodis porcum esse 
quam filium." If Augustus said this in Greek — and some have conjectured 
he did — the wit consisted probably in a play upon the words, Cs, (swine) and 
viae or w/oc, (son.) The passage is important chiefly as a confirmation of the fact 
related by the evangelist. 



GOVERNMENT FOR THE TRIBES. 45 

of these was Jechonias, Matt. i. 11, 12. In his days the taber- 
nacle of David fell, Acts. xv. 16. For God had then executed 
the threatening made by the mouth of the prophet Amos, ix. 
9, 11, by sifting the house of Israel among all nations, as corn 
is sifted in a sieve. Let us open this matter a little. 

The form of government appointed for the tribes of Israel, 
and for the land God gave them, was, from the time of their 
exodus from Egypt, purely theocratical ; God claimed for himself 
the prerogatives of an absolute king over them, and this appears 
even by the names the people themselves gave him. They called 
him their king, 1 Sam. xii. 12 ; Jer. li. 5J ; Ps. cxlix. 2, xlviii. 
2; Hos. xiii. 10; Matt. v. 35; their Elohim, Deut. xxvi. 17, a 
name applied to princes, judges, and kings, to denote their 
peculiar relations and powers, and to God also, not only on 
account of the worship due him, but as their king and protector. 
See Deut. v. 32; Judges viii. 22, 23; Exod. xix. 4, 5, 6. As 
an earthly king resides in his palace among his people, gives 
his commands, punishes the transgressors of his laws, adminis- 
ters justice, and provides in various ways for the well-being of 
his empire ; so God dwelt in the tabernacle by the symbol of 
his glorious presence above the ark, where the cherubim, with 
their outstretched wings, exhibited, as it were, the royal throne 
on which the Shekinah, or cloud glittering with fire, rested. 
As a king has his ministers of government, so Moses, before 
the institution of the ceremonial law, was God's minister, and 
the mediator between him and the people, Exod. xx. 19 ; Deut. 
v. 27 ; Gal. iii. 19. After the institution of the law, it was the 
office of Aaron, the chief-priest, as God's minister, to approach 
his throne, though but once only in a year, while the people 
were excluded even from the sight of it, Heb. ix. 7 ; Exod. 
xxx. 10; Lev. xvi. 2. No treaties could be formed with the 
nations, nor wars waged, without the command of God. 

When the people desired Gideon to be their king, and offered 
to make the royal office hereditary in his family, he promptly 
and resolutely refused the offer, saying, "I will not rule over 
you, neither shall my son rule over you. The Lord shall rule 
over you." Judges viii. 22, 23. 

While the theocracy remained unchanged from its original 
institution, the commonwealth of Israel prospered. Their de- 
mand of a king in the days of Samuel was virtually a rejection 
of Jehovah as their king, and the commencement of their 
downfall, 1 Sam. viii. 5, 7. For although in the times of David 
and Solomon the nation seemed more prosperous than ever 
before, yet the people were really in revolt. It was then that 
idolatry was introduced from the surrounding nations. At the 
close of Solomon's reign, about one hundred and twenty years 



46 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

after the change, the ten tribes revolted from the throne of 
David. This was a great calamity, especially to the revolt- 
ing tribes. Very few of Solomon's successors walked in 
the ways of the Lord, and scarcely any one of the kings of 
Israel. So that what Moses had intimated, if not clearly fore- 
told, was abundantly fulfilled in their subsequent history, Deut. 
xvii. 14, 20; 1 Sam. viii. 11 — 22. The Jews themselves, or at 
least some of the most devout, among them, ascribe the evils 
which befell their nation to their kings. Saul having forfeited 
the divine favour, fell on Mount Gilboa; David, by his sin, 
caused a plague; j\hab's sins provoked Divine judgment; 
Zedekiah caused the desolation of the sanctuary, &c. 

Yet God did not then absolutely withdraw the theocracy from 
all Israel for their sin in demanding a king. Nor did he when 
he rejected Saul, 1 Sam. xv. 28, restore the former regime under 
judges, but, (toUto, 1 Sam. xvi. 1, xiii. 14,) of Ms own accord, 
that is, without a fresh demand from the people, he chose David, 
and made him his minister, as Moses and the judges were, 
though for different ends, and not only, but graciously con- 
descended to make with him a covenant, in the execution of 
which he would not only restore the theocracy, but establish it 
in a higher and much more glorious form, Acts ii. 80; Ps. 
cxxxii. 11. This was the covenant of the kingdom under 
which the Lord himself became incarnate as king of Israel in 
the family of Joseph, to whom the right of the earthly king- 
dom had been transmitted by descent from David. 

We conclude, then, that the theocracy continued from its 
establishment, at the exodus from Egypt, until the birth of the 
Lord Jesus, even during the captivity, although in a modified 
form. The ten tribes, by their revolt from the house of David, 
renounced the blessings of the covenant with that patriarch, 
1 Kings xii. 16, and the special guardianship of Jehovah as their 
king, as did the two tribes also when they denied the Holy One 
and the Just, Acts. iii. 14, and before Pilate acknowledged 
Caesar as their only king, John xix. 15. Then indeed the 
theocracy was entirely withdrawn from all the tribes of Israel, 
nor will it be restored until the times of the Gentiles shall be 
fulfilled, Luke xxi. 24, and Israel shall be restored to the land 
of the covenant, and ungodliness be turned from them, Ps. ex. 
3; Matt, xxiii. 39; Rom. xi. 25, 26. With this great event 
God has inseparably connected the restoration of the world 
itself to its lost place in the holy creation. The kingdom of 
the heavens, which, as we have reason to believe, embraces 
innumerable worlds into which God has not permitted sin to 
enter, will then come nigh again to this world, and be out- 



DIVINE INTERPOSITION ON BEHALF OF JESUS. 47 

wardly established over a people prepared perfectly to obey its 
laws and enjoy its blessings. 

We may note in conclusion, that the Evangelist recognizes 
Herod as king of the Jews de facto. Yet he was not such de 
jure, being an Ascalonite by birth, and disqualified for the 
office he exercised even by the law of Moses, Deut. xvii. 15, 
not to mention the covenant with David, by which only the 
right to the kingdom could be conferred, Luke i. 32, 33. Our 
publicists may find here an example of, if not an authority for, 
the distinction they make between governments de jure and de 
facto. The mutations of earthly sovereignties show that there 
are none de jure divino, and will not be till the vision of the 
Psalmist shall be fulfilled, Ps. xlvii. 6, 7, and the Lord himself 
shall be king of Israel and king of the whole earth, and the 
theocracy be restored to the world, redeemed and purified from 
sin and every pollution. 

Matt. ii. 12, 13. We observe here that two extraordinary 
Divine interpositions occurred in order to save the infant Jesus 
from the cruelty of Herod, viz. the warning to the wise men 
not to return to Herod, and the warning to Joseph to flee to 
Egypt by night. They were special providences, not to say 
miracles, designed to avoid the necessity, if we may so say, of 
miracles or other extraordinary means, which would be more 
open to public observation. Human or natural means of pro- 
tection or escape were preferred to extraordinary or miraculous, 
in order that the passing of the Lord Jesus from infancy to 
manhood, and even through his public ministry, might be, in 
all respects, like that of other men, in more humano, as nearly 
as possible. 

It is observable that our Lord, after he entered publicly on 
his ministry, almost always withdrew from approaching danger, 
John vii. 1, x. 40; Matt. xii. 15; John xi. 54; yet on some 
occasions he escaped danger by extraordinary means, Luke iv. 
29, 30, and on other occasions he gave his word a miraculous 
power over the minds of his enemies, John vii. 32, 44, 45, 46. 
At last, however, he surrendered himself voluntarily, John 
xviii. 8, yet not without showing that he had power by his mere 
word to protect himself, John xviii. 6. The Evangelist ascribes 
the protection of his disciples, during the hour and power of 
darkness, Luke xxii. 53, simply to the power of his word, John 
xviii. 8, 9. But it is unnecessary to labour this point. It was 
impossible that he should die except in the appointed way, Luke 
xiii. 31, 33, and thus Satan reasoned in the temptation, Matt, 
iv. 6. He represents himself as laying down his life that he 
might take it again, John x. 17, 18, xix. 11 ; Matt. xxvi. 
53, 54. 



4'8 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Why, then, did he not always give his words the power to 
deter and awe his enemies ? Or, why did he not always give 
them the power to persuade? Why not the power to pros- 
trate ? Or if not, why did he not always protect himself by 
some miraculous means, as he did on some occasions, but 
rather resort to just such as a mere man would use to avoid 
dangers too great to be overcome. 

The answer is plain. The Messiah of prophecy was not to 
resort to miracles for self-preservation. His miracles were to be 
wrought in relief of the lame, the deaf, the blind, the infirm, the 
sick — not for himself, Matt. xi. 5. As the Son of man he multi- 
plied bread to feed the people, not to feed himself, Matt. iv. 3, 4. 
It is remarkable that the Evangelists never represent him as 
partaking with the people of the products of his miraculous 
power. He was not to provide for himself by miraculous 
means a house or shelter, or the ordinary comforts of life. 
Matt. viii. 20 ; see Matt. xii. 14—20 ; Isa. xlii. 1. 

This characteristic of the Saviour's life is prominent from 
the beginning to the end of it. As an infant he has the 
feebleness of infancy. During this period he provides for 
himself human parental care. The parents flee with him to 
avoid approaching dangers. The only or chief difference 
between this and other incidents is, that Joseph did not 
discover the danger by his own sagacity. He was divinely 
warned. Yet this warning was a secret intimation of which 
others had no knowledge. The wise men were diverted from 
their purpose to return to Jerusalem in the same way. The 
command of God absolved them from their promise to Herod, 
if they made one, and they were soon beyond the bounds 
of Judea. Nor do we know that they ever returned. Yet 
divine power truly resided in the person of the Saviour, 
continually, from his birth, until he yielded up his human 
spirit on the cross. At twelve years of age, he manifested 
extraordinary, but not the superhuman wisdom he really 
possessed, Luke ii. 42, 43. His physical and mental powers he 
developed gradually from childhood to manhood. Luke ii. 52. 
And after he entered on his ministry he put forth his divine 
power, and manifested the divine nature which was in him, 
according to divinely appointed measures, without ostentation 
or display, Matt. xii. 19; not for the purpose of showing, that 
as a man he was unlike others (except in this, that he bore all 
the predicted marks and characteristics of Messiah,) John 
xv. 24 — not to show that his manhood already partook of the 
divine nature, but that the divine nature was truly incarnate in 
his humanity. 



herod's massacre of the children. 49 

Matt. ii. 18, and Jer. xxxi. 15. "A voice was heard in 
Kama," &e. 

The subject of this chapter of Jeremiah, from which the 
Evangelist quotes, is the captivity of the ten tribes, and their 
restoration. Rachel, the wife of Jacob, is exhibited as 
lamenting the loss of her children. She was buried in the 
way to Ephrata, which is Bethlehem, Gen. xxxv. 19 ; xlviii. 7. 
Rama was several miles distant from Bethlehem, but both 
within the tribe of Benjamin. Rachel was the mother of 
Joseph and Benjamin; and Ephraim, who is specially men- 
tioned in the 6th, 9th, 18th, and 20th verses, was the younger 
son of Joseph, Gen. xlviii. 18, but is here named as the head of 
the ten tribes, which had been carried into captivity (circ. 721 
B. c. ; 2 Kings xvii. 6 ; xviii. 10) a century or more before this 
prophecy was uttered. These are the children for whom 
Rachel is represented as weeping. The prophet, in the name 
of the Lord, bids her to refrain her voice from weeping, and 
her eyes from tears, "for thy work shall have a reward, saith 
Jehovah, and they shall return out of the land of the enemy. 
There is hope in thy latter end, saith Jehovah, and thy children 
shall return unto their own border." 

Thus explained, the prophecy respects the restoration of the 
ten tribes. Hulsius {Nucleus Prophetice) and others contend 
that the prophecy relates to the captivity of Judah and Ben- 
jamin, notwithstanding Ephraim, or the ten tribes, is expressly 
named, because, as Hulsius says, there is no mention made in 
Scriptures of the restoration of the ten tribes, but on the 
contrary, it is denied that they ever will return. For this 
assertion he cites Hosea i., but see Hosea iii. 4, 5; Ezek. 
xxxvii. 20, 22; and Jer. xxxi., throughout. Professor Lee 
and other writers entertain the same view, on substantially the 
same grounds. This whole subject has been ably discussed by 
the Rev. Walter Chamberlain, in a work entitled the "National 
Restoration and Conversion of the Twelve Tribes of Israel," 
to which the reader is referred. 

The object of this note is not to enter into this inquiry, but 
to consider what connection there is between this interpretation 
or view of the prophet's words, and the massacre of the 
children of Bethlehem by Herod. On either hypothesis the 
difficulty is the same. That there is such a connection, how- 
ever, as fully warrants the quotation, may be assumed; but 
what is it? 

It is to be observed, that the Evangelist quotes only the 

15th verse, which is not prophetic but retrospective. Rachel 

is represented as lamenting a calamity already suffered. In 

point of fact, the ten tribes had been in captivity more than a 

7 



50 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

century when Jeremiah wrote. The prophecy respecting their 
restoration is contained in the sixteenth and seventeenth verses, 
which are not quoted. 

The cause of the lamentation of Rachel was the ruthless 
violence of the Assyrian in carrying away the ten tribes, after 
myriads of them had been slaughtered. The conduct of Herod, 
we may admit, was not less cruel, but this cannot be the reason 
for the quotation; for, hesides that the number of Herod's 
victims was comparatively small, it does not appear that they 
were descendants of Rachel, or of the number of those for 
whom she is represented as lamenting. Yet says the Evan- 
gelist, "then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremiah, 
&c, Rachel weeping for her children, and would not be 
comforted, because they are not." 

To satisfy the words of the Evangelist, we must find in the 
conduct of Herod a renewed cause for the lamentation of the 
mother of the ten tribes, and this will appear if we consider the 
general design of the Evangelist. This design was, as we have 
seen, to represent the Lord Jesus as the seed in whom the 
Abrahamic and Davidic covenants met, and were to be fulfilled. 
These covenants required the restoration and conversion of 
the ten tribes of Israel, and, of course, the fulfilment of 
the promises contained in the 16th and 17th verses, Jer. 
xxxi. — "they shall come again from the land of the enemy," 
"there is hope in thine end," thy children shall come again 
to the land of their own border." The rejection of the 
Lord Jesus by the nation, and his crucifixion by the command 
of Pilate, postponed, so to speak, the realization of these 
promises, and, in the figurative language of the prophet, were 
renewed causes for the weeping of their mother. In the same 
way the act of Herod was a blow aimed at the Deliverer, which 
led to his temporary exile, verse 14, and afterwards to his resi- 
dence in a despised place, Matt. ii. 23, John i. 46, and the 
reproachful epithet of Nazarene. All these acts of Herod, of 
the Jews, of Pilate, tended directly to prolong the calamity, at 
first inflicted by the Assyrian. In this point of view the 
Evangelist appears to have regarded it. If the original cap- 
tivity was a cause of weeping, now, when the appointed time 
for their restoration from captivity had come, any act that 
would frustrate their restoration, and thereby prolong, if not 
perpetuate, their captivity, was a fresh cause for weeping ; not, 
however, for the children slain by Herod, who were not of the 
tribe of Ephraim, but for her own children, or the ten tribes 
represented by Ephraim, because, after so long a time, and even 
after their Redeemer had come to deliver and restore them, 
they still are not. Before the advent of their Redeemer, she 



JOHN THE BAPTIST. 51 

sorrowed for their loss by the hand of the Assyrian. But after 
their Redeemer came, and upon the first public announcement 
of his birth, Herod sought his life, and drove him into exile, 
her sorrow for the same cause is renewed and increased by 
disappointed hope. It is true, Herod did not accomplish what 
he attempted, though it is probable he thought he had. But 
the Evangelist, writing after our Lord's ascension, probably 
grouped in his own mind this act of Herod with the act of the 
Jews and of Pilate, who actually executed what Herod in vain 
attempted. Or, as an old commentator expresses it, Christ 
being yet scarce born, beginneth to be crucified for us, &c. 

The representation of the prophet is dramatical. By a bold 
figure, he represents " Rachel as come forth from her grave, 
lamenting bitterly the loss of her children; none of whom pre- 
sented themselves to her view, being all slain or gone into exile." 
Blaney. The Evangelist adopts the imagery of the prophet, 
and applies it to the first of that series of persecutions, which 
resulted in the rejection and death of the Redeemer of her lost 
ones, because by means of those acts, the cause of this mother's 
sorrow was prolonged ; and, but for the mercy of God, through 
the blood of this rejected Redeemer, would have been per- 
petual. 

This view of the passage yields a sense in harmony with the 
scope of the Evangelist, and with the words, verse 17, by which 
he introduces the quotation. See Spanheim, Bub. Evang. 
553 — 575, for an elaborate discussion of this passage. 



CHAPTER II. 

John's Character and Ministry. — John's Baptism emblematical. — Baptism of 
the Holy Spirit. — Baptism by Fire. — Baptism of Christ. — Commencement of 
Christ's Ministry. — Christ's Sermon on the Mount. — The Office of Faith in 
Miracles. — Diversities of the Operations of Faith. — Christ's title, "Son of 
Man." — Mysteries of Christ's Nature. — Christ's power over the Physical 
World. — Christ's power over Evil Spirits. 

Matthew hi. 1. "In those days came John the Baptist in 
the wilderness of Judea." 

The Evangelist refers to John as a well-known character; 
and such he was among the Jews. Josephus, the historian, 
forty years afterwards speaks of him much in the same way. 
Antiq. xviii. c. 5, § 2. 

He was also a very extraordinary character/in whatever view 
we consider him. His conception was announced by the angel 
Gabriel, Luke i. 13 — 19. It was miraculous, or out of the 
ordinary course of nature, Luke i. 7 — 18, as truly so as was 



52 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Isaac's, Rom. iv. 19. His name (John) which signifies grace, 
favour, was divinely appointed, Luke i. 13, though not pro- 
phesied of. His manner of life was peculiar ; he dwelt in the 
deserts, until the day of his showing unto Israel at Bethabara, 
near the banks of Jordan, Luke i. 80 ; Matt. xi. 18 ; John i. 
28; iii. 23. His ministry was closed by his imprisonment — 
his imprisonment by his death. He was filled with the Holy 
Ghost from his birth, Luke i. 15, and performed his office 
with the spirit and power of Elias, Luke i. 17, although he 
was not Elias in person, John i. 21, as the name given him 
was designed to indicate. His mission and ministry were fore- 
told, Isaiah xl. 3 ; Matt. iii. 1 ; Mark i. 2 ; Matt. xi. 10, but 
not under any name; as was that of Cyrus, Isaiah xlv. 1, 
and that of Elijah, Mai. iv. 5. His mission was divine, 
John i. 6, 33; Matt. xxi. 25, yet did he not use the style of 
the prophets, " Thus saith the Lord." The authentication of 
his mission and office was so complete, that the common people 
would not permit even their rulers to call it in question, Matt. 
xxi. 26. The masses of the people thronged his ministry, and 
submitted to his baptism, and mused in their hearts whether he 
were not the Christ, Matt. iii. 5 ; Luke iii. 15, 21. Yet he 
performed no miracle, John x. 41. It is remarkable, too, 
that the common people received him as a prophet, but not as 
Elias, while the learned rejected him as one possessed by the 
devil, Matt. xi. 18. His ministry was limited to the circum- 
cision, as was the personal ministry of our Lord, Rom. xv. 8 ; 
Matt. xv. 24. Very little has been recorded of it, and nothing 
separately, but only in connection with the personal ministry 
of the Lord. 

But whence did he derive his cognomination, Baptist ? It 
was not said to Zacharias that he should be so called, or that 
he should baptize the nation, Luke i. 13. It was not given 
him at his circumcision, Luke i. 60 — 63, Luke describes him as 
John the son of Zacharias, iii. 2 ; yet the addition was com- 
monly and properly made. Herod so called him, Matt. xiv. 2, 
John's disciples also, Luke vii. 20, and our Lord himself, 
Luke vii. 33; See also xiv. 8; xvii. 13; Mark viii. 28; Luke 
vii. 28 ; ix. 19. John says of himself that he was sent to 
baptize, John i. 33, though we know he preached also, and 
with great power, Luke i. 17 ; iii. 15. These were, however, 
distinct functions, 1 Cor. i. 17, and with John preaching was 
the subordinate; baptizing the chief function. This is, per- 
haps, one reason why our Lord said he was more than a pro- 
phet. 

The explanation probably is this: John was the forerun- 
ner of the new dispensation, the near approach of which he 



JOHN'S MISSION. 53 

announced; and his ministry was appointed to introduce it. 
Now baptism, or its equivalent, has hitherto introduced every 
economy of the divine government since the fall of man. Thus, 
Noah was introduced through water by means of an ark into a 
new economy ; in fact, into a new world ; and in this event the 
apostle Peter finds the equivalent for baptism, 1 Peter iii. 20, 
21. Moses brought Israel into new covenant relations with 
God, by what Paul calls a baptism in the sea, and in the cloud, 
1 Cor. x. 1, 2. The economy established by the hand of 
Moses, was now about expiring. A new economy — the dispen- 
sation of the kingdom of the heavens — had come nigh. John 
was appointed to announce the event, and baptize the people as 
a preparation for it. This being the chief object of his mission, 
he was therefore called the Baptist. 

Matt. hi. 3. "For this person," says the Evangelist, "is he 
that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, chap. xl. 3, saying, 
The voice of one crying in the wilderness : Prepare ye the way 
of the Lord, make his paths straight." 

John the Baptist applied the same prophecy to himself in 
answer to the questions of the priests and Levites sent from 
Jerusalem to him at Jordan, "Who art thou?" "What sayest 
thou of thyself?" John i. 22, 23. Our Lord also applied to 
him the prophecy in Mai. iii. 1, Matt. xi. 10, and the 
Evangelist Mark applies to him both, Isa. xl. 3, and Mai. iii. 1, 
Mark i. 2,3. It is remarkable that neither of the Evangelists, 
nor the Baptist, nor our Lord, ever quotes or cites the very 
notable prophecy in Mai. iv. 5, concerning the mission of Elijah, 
as having reference to the person of John. But the common 
opinion of Protestant commentators of the last two centuries 
is, that all these prophecies were fulfilled by the mission of 
John the Baptist. Augustine, Chrysostom, Jerome, and the 
early Christian writers, on the contrary, generally held that 
the last of these prophecies, Mai. iv. 5, is yet unfulfilled. As 
the point is of considerable importance in its bearings on the 
interpretation of other Scriptures, it deserves a careful inves- 
tigation. With a view to this question, several distinctions, 
besides that above suggested, should be carefully considered. 
We notice them in this place very briefly, because they will 
occur in connection with other texts. 

(1.) John was not Elias in person, John i. 21. He came 
during the continuance of the legal economy. His mission was 
unsuccessful. He did not restore all things, Matt. xvii. 11, 
Acts iii. 21. The Jews nationally rejected the Lord Jesus, 
and for that sin were destroyed as a nation, and scattered 
among the Gentiles. The restitution of all things is still future, 
Acts iii. 21. But the prophecy (Mai. iv. 5) foretells that the 



51 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

mission of Elijah will be successful. "He shall turn the hearts 
of the fathers to the children," &c, otherwise the Lord will 
smite the earth with a second curse, Mai. iv. 6, Matt. xvii. 11. 
While the legal economy lasted, and before the influence of the 
Holy Spirit had been purchased by the death of Christ, the 
mission of Elijah would have been premature, because, owing 
to the depravity of human nature, it would infallibly have been 
unsuccessful, as John's ministry proved ; and so this prophecy 
would have failed. But when Elijah comes, it will not be in his 
own spirit and power, but in the spirit and power of God the 
Lord, as his name imports, whose influences have been secured 
by the work of Christ. 

(2.) Although John the Baptist was not Elijah in person, yet 
he was equal to Elijah, Matt. xi. 11. He went forth to the 
people in all the energy and power of Elijah, Luke i. 17. He 
was therefore, in his office and functions, the Elijah of the legal 
economy, and was raised up especially to fulfil the office of Eli- 
jah at that time — that is, to do all that Elijah himself could 
have done towards preparing the way of the Lord, had he been 
sent to Israel at that time in person. John would have been 
the Elijah foretold, if the people had received him, Matt. xi. 
14. But it was not more impossible for John to be Elijah in 
person, than it was for the Jews to receive him with the obedi- 
ence of faith, Jer. xiii. 23; Isa. liv. 13; John vi. 44, 45. 

(3.) John was the subject of prophecy as well as Elijah, but 
not of the same prophecies. John was not prophesied of by 
name, but only by description ; as a voice crying in the wilder- 
ness, Isa. xl. 3, or as a messenger sent before the face of the 
Lord, to prepare his way, Mai. iii. 1. Elijah was prophesied 
of by name, and his mission and the successful result of it 
expressly foretold. 

(4.) Both, however, were prophesied of, as ministers of the 
circumcision. Both were to be sent to a people dwelling to- 
gether in the land of Israel, and not to that people, as they 
now are, scattered abroad among the nations. It is implied 
therefore in the prophecy of the future coming of Elijah, that 
Israel shall yet be restored to their land and be dwelling therein, 
after which this prophecy shall be fulfilled. 

Matt. hi. 6. "And were baptized of him in Jordan, con- 
fessing their sins." 

Paul represents the miraculous passage of Israel through the 
Red Sea as a baptism into Moses, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, but not their 
miraculous passage through the river Jordan, Josh. iii. 14, 16, 
as a baptism into Joshua. Why was not the latter a baptism 
in the same sense as the former? The reason for the distinc- 
tion is not to be found in the nature or the relative magnitude 



JOHN'S BAPTISM. 55 

of the miracles, but in the character and official relations of the 
persons who performed them. Moses introduced, officially or 
instrumentallj, a new economy which was appointed to subsist 
until the Messiah should come, John i. 17; Joshua fulfilled no 
such office, Heb. iv. 8. The functions he performed were sub- 
sidiary to the work of Moses, and were not undertaken until 
near forty years after the giving of the law. His taking the 
people through Jordan was not, in any sense, a baptism intro- 
ductory to a new economy, though it was a miraculous mani- 
festation of the divine power, and a wonderful proof of the 
theocracy which had been established over Israel at Mount 
Sinai. As such, it was proper to be commemorated by especial 
means, Josh. iv. 4, 7, 20, 23. But Joshua, as well as John 
the Baptist, was, in a certain sense, a forerunner of the Lord 
Jesus. He was also a type of him. By taking the people 
through Jordan, Joshua did not introduce them into the pro- 
mised rest of the kingdom of God, Heb. iv. 8, but he pre- 
figured by this act that which Jesus — the Prince who appeared 
to Joshua, v. 13, 14, 15 — now at the close of that economy had 
come to perform, Luke i. 68 — 75, by actually bestowing upon 
Israel the blessings of the kingdom of which the promised land 
was a type. 

There may also be something significant in the place where 
John baptized. If it be inquired why John baptized in Jordan 
rather than in any other stream, may we not answer that both 
Jordan and Canaan were types of heavenly things, and that 
John, as the baptizer of Israel in Jordan, performed an office 
which Joshua could not, because the time appointed for it had 
not come? This answer, if well founded, suggests the further 
observation that John's ministry of baptism in Jordan, was, so 
to speak, supplementary to Joshua's in conducting the people 
through Jordan, and that the functions of both Joshua and 
John must be combined, in order to make up what was included 
in the corresponding part of the ministry of Moses.* John the 
Baptist performed no miracle, but Joshua and Jesus did. 
Neither Joshua nor Jesus baptized the people, though they 
were themselves baptized. We do not read that John the Bap- 
tist was baptized by Jesus or by any other, although he was 
filled with the Holy Spirit from his birth, Luke i. 15. 

Matt. hi. 11. "I indeed baptize you with water unto" — in 
order to — "repentance; but he that cometh after me . . . 

* Quod Moses nequivit, Joshua fecit ; quod Joshua non facere potuit (intro- 
ducere in coelestem requiem) Jesus efficit solus. Joshua fluentum dirimit, 
aquas dissecat sed Dei manu: — Jesus . . . propria potentia, mari, yento, fluc- 
tibus imperat. Area foederis in aquis stans omnibus Israelitarum securum 
transitum prsebuit : Jesus in Jordane stans, coelum aperuit, etc. — J. H. Maius. 



56 NOTES ON SCKIPTURE. 

he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and [with] fire," 
Luke iii. 16. 

John was a minister of the circumcision. His mission, like 
that of Isaiah, Elijah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the other prophets, 
was to the "house of Israel," or rather to the "house of 
Judah." His baptism was appointed for the whole people, and 
his preaching was addressed to all, Acts xiii. 24; Luke iii. 18, 
21. We are to understand "you," therefore, in this enlarged 
or national sense. " I baptize you" Israel, or house of Israel, 
"with water," &c. In the same enlarged sense we are to under- 
stand the word "you" in the last clause, " He shall baptize 
you" house of Israel "with the Holy Ghost and fire" — not 
you pharisees and sadducees, jevv^fioxa kytdvcov. 

One object of John was, to state a contrast between the bap- 
tism which he administered and that which should afterwards 
be administered by him whom he preceded. It is implied also, 
that his baptism would be ineffectual to secure their national 
repentance. They — that is the nation — needed, and at some 
time afterwards should receive, a baptism of divine power, 
which should be effectual, Acts v. 31. The last clause is there- 
fore prophetical and as yet unfulfilled. The nation has never 
yet been baptized with the Holy Ghost. A long interval had 
been laid in the divine plan between John's day and the fulfil- 
ment of this prophecy or promise, during which many mo- 
mentous events were to occur; — The appearance and public 
ministry of the Lord Jesus — his rejection and death — the open- 
ing of a new dispensation for the gathering and upbuilding of 
the Church — the destruction of the temple — the dispersion of 
the people among all nations during the times of the Church 
militant — the final restoration of Israel to their own land — the 
mission of Elijah to them in their restored condition at the time 
of the proximate approach of the restitution of all things. Acts 
iii. 21, and see note on that verse. Not until all these things 
shall have come to pass will this prediction of John the Baptist 
be fulfilled. But then it will be ; for observe the prediction is 
absolute. "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and 
with fire." The prediction is concurrent or parallel with Mai. 
iv. 5, 6. See Ezek. xxxix. 28, 29. 

John's baptism of the nation with water, was simply em- 
blematical of this future baptism of the nation with the Holy 
Ghost. Neither has respect to the Church. John's baptism 
preceded the times of the Church — the baptism of which he 
prophesied will follow those times. The baptism which our 
Lord appointed after his resurrection, Matt, xxviii. 19, on the 
other hand, had respect to the Church which is to be taken out 
of all nations, Acts xv. 14. It looks forward to the end of the 



BAPTISM WITH THE HOLY GHOST. 57 

dispensation of the gospel among all nations, . and the comple- 
tion of the elect body of Christ. There it terminates. In this 
respect it is like the Lord's supper, which was appointed to 
show forth the Lord's death till he come, 1 Cor. xi. 26. The 
second coming of Christ and the gathering of the Church unto 
him, will supersede both, as his first coming superseded the 
institution of the passover. So the baptism with the Holy 
Ghost, which our Lord promised to the apostles on the day of 
his final ascension, Acts i. 4, had the Church in view. See 
notes on Acts i. 5, and Mark xvi. 15, 16, Acts. ii. 2 — 4. The 
baptism which John promised to the whole nation, the Lord 
actually bestowed on a few who received him, John i. 12, but 
withheld it at that time from the masses, who rejected him, 
though he will yet fulfil the promise on all Israel it its amplest 
sense, Rom. xi. 29, when the times appointed to the Gentiles 
shall have been fulfilled, Rom. xi. 25, 27. 

The fall of Israel gave occasion to the dispensation of the 
gospel to the Gentiles, Rom. xi. 11, to the dispersion of the 
Jews among the Gentiles, and the consequent postponement of 
the restitution of all things, and the baptism of Israel as a 
nation by the Holy Ghost : so that the present dispensation for 
the building of the Church is intercalated, if we may so express 
it, between the baptism of the nation by John with water, and 
the promised baptism of the nation by Christ with the Holy 
Ghost. 

Besides this difference in the times and persons to which the 
baptism of John and that appointed by our Lord relate, there 
is another, too important to be passed without notice. The 
baptism of John was ineffectual, because it was not attended by 
the Holy Spirit's influence. Indeed, the promise of a future 
baptism with the Holy Ghost implied a negative of his present 
influence. But the baptism with water appointed by Christ 
after his resurrection will be made effectual upon the elect by 
the accompanying energies of the Holy Spirit. So that 
although the baptism of John was ineffectual to prepare Israel 
for the first coming of Christ, the latter will be effectual 
to prepare the elect church for his second coming. This great 
object, the completion of the church, having been accomplished 
through the Lord's death, resurrection, and ascension, he will, 
at his second coming, baptize the bodies of his elect, both the 
living and the dead, with the Holy Ghost, thereby transforming 
them into bodies of glory like his own, Philip, iii. 20, 21 — 
their souls having already been baptized with the renewing 
influences of the Spirit. He will, at the same time, also 
baptize the souls of his restored people Israel with the Holy 
Ghost, as he did the twelve apostles on the Pentecost after his 
8 



58 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

ascension, thereby converting them universally into an emi- 
nently holy people. And the Spirit will also, at the same 
epoch, to complete the restitution of all things, move, as he did 
at the beginning, over the face of physical nature, Gen. i. 2, 
delivering (zov xoa/iou) the earth itself and its furniture of 
creatures from the bondage to which the Creator subjected them 
by reason of sin, Rom. viii. 20, 21. Vast, and very various 
then, will be the work of the Holy Spirit in bringing about this 
mighty change of the Divine administration, dependent upon 
the second coming of the Lord to fulfil this prediction of John 
the Baptist. 

It is worthy of observation, that our Lord promised the 
apostles at his last interview, Acts i. 5, "that they should be 
baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." By 
these words he alluded by way of contrast, as we suppose, to 
the more distant fulfilment of the prediction made by John. 
As if he had said, "God's promise by the mouth of John the 
Baptist to all Israel shall be fulfilled to you who have received 
me, not many days hence, however long it may be deferred to 
those who rejected me." John i. 12. If this suggestion is well 
founded, all the apostles might have applied to themselves the 
expression of Paul, 1 Cor. xv. 8, regarding himself as having 
been born of God before the due time ; — i. e. the time appointed 
for all Israel. See Joseph Medes note on this text. 

We observe again: Our Lord did not promise the apostles 
baptism "with fire," although the fact of such a promise as he 
made has inclined many to suppose the whole of the prediction 
of John was actually fulfilled at that time. It is by no means 
necessary, however, to suppose that the cloven tongues "like as 
of fire," resting upon the twelve apostles, were the baptism 
with fire which John the Baptist predicted. They may be 
regarded as emblems or visible signs of the Holy Spirit's 
presence, designed to convince the apostles, and those who saw 
them, of the fulfilment of the Saviour's promise to send the 
Comforter to them, John xvi. 7. In the case of Cornelius and 
his kinsmen, Acts x. 24, the Holy Spirit also descended 
visibly: the object of the visible demonstration being to teach 
the apostles God's purpose to admit Gentiles into the church, 
and so Peter considered it, Acts x. 47. In the case of the 
apostles, they were tokens or badges of authority which none 
could dispute, and as such were important means in laying the 
foundation of the church. We do not read that the apostles, 
except Paul, Acts ix. 18, were baptized with water (unless 
with the baptism of John,) either before or after the day of 
Pentecost — the symbol of water in baptism having been design- 



BAPTISM WITH FIRE. 59 

edly supplied, it may be, by more impressive emblems of the 
Spirit's presence on the day of Pentecost. 

Matt. in. 12 : " Whose fan (is) in his hand, and he will thor 
oughly purge his floor and gather the wheat into his garner, 
but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Luke 
iii. 17. 

This verse, if not exegetical of the preceding, should be 
interpreted in connection with its last clause. It is predictive 
of God's dealings with Israel after their restoration, prepara- 
tory to their baptism with the Holy Ghost, or, it may be, in 
connection with it. Ezekiel, chap. xx. 38, foretells that God 
will purge out from among the house of Israel rebels and trans- 
gressors, see vs. 33 — 40, and there are other similar prophe- 
cies. See Deut. xviii. 15 — 19, Acts iii. 23, and note on that 
verse. The language is figurative, taken from husbandry. 
The same figure is made the groundwork of the parable of the 
tares, Matt. xiii. 30, 40, 41, although the parable has a wider 
scope than this verse. It is implied in the language of John, 
that the acts of purging of the floor and the separating of the 
wheat from the chaff, are to be performed at the time of the 
harvest, which, in the parable of the tares, is declared to be the 
end of the world, Matt. xiii. 39, that is (too oluovoq) of this 
dispensation of the gospel among the Gentiles, and no reason is 
perceived why the same symbol, "harvest," should be used to 
denote different, even remote epochs. Some of the arguments 
under the last verse might here be repeated, but we add under 
this head only that both Mark and John omit this verse, and 
the last two words, "with fire," of the preceding verse. The 
reason may be that the matter exclusively concerned Israel, 
and was not of so much importance to Gentile Christians, for 
whom chiefly they wrote. These observations suggest our next 
remark: The words "with fire," or baptism with fire, denote 
punishment. The meaning may be thus expressed: "He," 
the Messiah, at his second appearing to you, house of 
Israel, after your final restoration, Ezek. xx. 33 et seq., shall 
baptize (consume) and utterly destroy* those of you who still 
continue to be rebels and transgressors against him with fire, 
see note on Acts iii. 22, 23; while those who repent and are 
inclined to obey his voice he will baptize with the Holy Ghost. 
This interpretation is borne out by the last clause of the twelfth 
verse. The chaff denotes those whom the Lord will reject and 
cut off from the people, and the burning of the chaff with 

* The expression is elliptical; we supply the word "baptize" from the pre- 
ceding phrase. If the expression, " baptize "with fire," in the sense of con- 
sume, seems unusual, the reader may adopt the word "consume" or destroy, 
which is the sense as it appears to the writer. 



60 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

unquenchable fire denotes their sudden and utter destruction. 
To this extent, at least, the twelfth appears to be exegetical of 
the eleventh verse. 

Upon the whole, then, it is submitted that these two verses 
relate exclusively to Israel as a nation — that they are predic- 
tive of events, not only still future, but events which cannot 
occur, until the winding up of the present dispensation; nor 
until the eve of, or after, the restoration of that people to their 
land — that then God will try that people, and separate those 
who remain obdurate and rebellious from the rest, and destroy 
them utterly; while he will baptize the saved ones with the 
Holy Ghost as he did the twelve apostles on the day of Pente- 
cost, only in a larger measure, in order to fit them for the 
higher and holier dispensation of the kingdom of God to come, 
Matt. vi. 10. See note on Acts iii. 22, 23, in which even the 
least of them shall be greater than the apostles were during 
their earthly ministry. The common interpretation of these 
verses is liable to several objections beside those implied in the 
foregoing remarks. 

The apostles were not baptized with fire on the day of Pen- 
tecost, Acts ii. 3. The parted tongues which sat upon them 
were not fire, though they had the appearance of fire. Nor was 
any considerable part of the nation baptized with the Holy 
Ghost. -The great body not only remained obdurate and rebel- 
lious, but became worse and worse, till they were destroyed as 
a nation. Yet dreadful as were the divine judgments, there 
was mercy mingled with them. The people were scattered, yet 
preserved as a race. They are probably now, and for ages 
past have been, as numerous as they were then. These events 
do not come up to, or correspond with the language of the 12th 
verse. The thorough purging of the floor, the gathering of the 
wheat into the store-house, and the burning of the chaff (the 
wicked) with unquenchable fire, denote decisive and final action, 
not corrective punishments (to be followed by another trial) 
such as the prophets predict. Ezek. xx. 35 — 38, xxxviii., Mai. 
iv., Zech. xiii. 8, 9, xiv., iii. 9, Jerem. xxxiii. 8, Isa. iv. 3, 4, 
Joel ii. iii. 

The interpolation of the word is, by the translators, has pro- 
bably given occasion to the common interpretation. Retaining 
this word, however, the language is parabolical ; and in para- 
bles, the time of the action represented, does not depend upon 
the grammatical tenses employed in their construction.* 

* The phrase (oC to 7rruov \v m ^sipt tturou) is an example of the nominative 
absolute. The noun has no finite verb in the original, and should have none in 
the translation. The writer or speaker appears to have cut short the construc- 
tion first intended, and adopted another. Many examples of this sort occur in 



BAPTISM OF CHRIST. 61 

Matt. hi. 14. "But John forbade him saying, I have need 
to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?" or, "I have 
need to be baptized of thee, and thou comest to me !" 

When we consider that John was filled with the Holy Ghost 
from his birth, Luke i. 15, that his mind and affections were 
renewed, and his whole spiritual nature fitted for the eminent 
services for which he had been raised up, we naturally inquire 
in what sense he needed baptism. A holier man than he had 
never lived, for holiness in the divine regard, is an indispensable 
element of greatness. Matt. xi. 11. Even the apostles after the 
day of Pentecost, it is probable, were not so fully nor so con- 
stantly possessed by the Holy Ghost as was John. What further 
need then had John to be baptized of any? Are these words 
anything more than an expression of the humble sense this 
eminently holy man entertained of himself in comparison with 
the august Being who stood before him ? We apprehend they 
are. The words (iycu %pstav i%co) "I have need," denote a real 
necessity; and if they were uttered by the promptings of the 
Holy Spirit within him, we must interpret them in a sense com- 
mensurate with the Spirit's work. Accordingly, we understand 
them not only of something which John then had not, but of 
something which he could only receive through the baptism of 
Jesus. Now it may safely be affirmed, that John had all which 
the Holy Ghost has ever done or ever will do for any man in 
this life in the way of sanctifiation, except for those of the 
Lord's elect, who shall be alive at his second coming. Philip, iii. 
21 ; 1 Thess. iv. IT. All that remained for John to desire, or 
for the Spirit to do, was the regeneration or glorification of his 
body; the Spirit's crowning work in man's redemption, which 
could not precede, but must follow the sacrificial work of Christ, 
and his ascension to glory. 

The reply of the Lord Jesus tacitly concedes what John had 
said of himself, and by joining John as, in some sense $ a 
co-worker with him, he virtually promised John the baptism 
he desired. As if he had said, " True, thou hast need to be 
baptized by me; and hereafter — not now — I will baptize thee 
with my baptism." What he added, revealed to John, it is 
probable, a purpose which he did not understand before. We 
paraphrase it thus, "Yet baptize thou me with water now, for 
the appointed way to my baptism is through thine. I must 

the New Testament. They are characteristic of impassioned discourse. The 
connection and the sense may be expressed thus: " I indeed baptize you with 
water, but the days are coming when Messiah shall baptize you with the Holy 
Ghost and fire. At that time going forth, with his fan in hand, as the husband- 
man does, in the time of harvest, he will thoroughly purge his floor," etc. 



62 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

first be baptized with water to prefigure my death and burial, 
and then again be baptized with the Spirit for my glorification. 
Luke xii. 50, and see the introductory note on Acts, chap. ii. 
Afterwards I will baptize thee. In this manner it is appointed 
unto us to fulfil all righteousness." 

Matt. hi. 15. "Suffer it to be so now" — rather (d^sc dpzc) 
"Suffer it at this time;" the word dpre being used in the 
sense of the Hebrew hap-pa-am w&n (Gen. ii. 23, xxix. 35; 
Exod. ix. 27.) There is a tacit allusion in this expression 
to another time or coming, as if the Lord had said, "I have 
now come to offer this human body which I have assumed, 
as a sacrifice for sin ; and the baptism of it, which I seek at 
your hands, is a typical showing forth of the sacrifice I am to 
make. But I shall come (ix deurspoo, Heb. ix. 28, an dpre, 
Matt. xxvi. 64,) at another time, and at that, my second com- 
ing — that time, this rite, as you suppose, will not be proper; 
for then shall I come, without a sin-offering, not in a body to 
be sacrificed for sin, but in glory for the salvation of those who 
shall then look for me, and love my appearing. Heb. ix. 28; 
2 Tim. iv. 8. 

May we not suppose that our Lord then first made known to 
John the mystery of his sufferings and death ; for John at first 
recoiled from the service required of him, as though it were no 
part of his office to perform it. It was after this, too, that 
John called the Lord Jesus the Lamb of God, who taketh 
away the sin of the world, John i. 29. It was then also John 
discovered the Messiah, whose coming he had announced, in 
the person of Jesus, John i. 31, 33; first by the special reve- 
lation of Jesus, and immediately afterwards by the descent of 
the Holy Spirit, in the form of a dove. John must have dis- 
cerned also, in this typical action, the unsuccessful issue of 
his own ministry; for it was impossible that he should be 
received by the nation in the spirit of his mission, and Jesus be 
rejected. 

This interpretation of the passage suggests a reason for the 
(xotvtovqott;) peculiar phraseology of our Lord's address to John — 
"For so," that is, in this typical way, "it becometh us to fulfil 
all righteousness." The actual fulfilling of all righteousness 
was certainly our Lord's sole work. " He trod the wine-press 
alone." But John could take part with him in this typical 
action, which significantly set it forth. 

If we reflect that the Lord was speaking to one filled with 
the Holy Ghost (and therefore able to comprehend his mean- 
ing,) about a mystery of redemption, not understood by this 
eminently gifted man before, we shall be convinced that the 



PURPOSE OP JOHN'S MINISTRY. 63 

sense in which these verses are commonly interpreted, falls far 
short of their true intent and meaning. 

Matt. hi. 17. "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am. 
well pleased." These words attested to John the Baptist the 
divine Sonship of the Lord Jesus, and the Father's approbation. 
If we now turn to Matt. xvii. 5; Mark ix. 7; Luke ix. 35, 
we find that the same words were uttered in the hearing of 
Peter, James, and John, with the addition of a command — 
"Hear ye him." Why this difference? May we not find it 
in the different offices to be performed by these persons ? John 
the Baptist was the forerunner of the Lord. His ministry 
must end before that of the Lord Jesus could begin, Matt. iv. 
12, 17. The disciples, on the other hand, were to be ambas- 
sadors (ministers, servants,) to publish the messages the Lord 
gave them. Hence the (abrou dxousre) command was added — 
"Hear, obey him," thus making their mission, if we may so 
say, twice divine, from the Father as well as from the Son. 
This explanation, if correct, discloses one of those nice congru- 
ities or fitnesses which tend strongly to establish the genuine- 
ness of the Gospels. No fabricator of fictitious writings 
would have thought of such a distinction. This is proved by 
the fact that so few readers of the Gospels observe it, until 
pointed out, or if they do, do not discover the reason of it. 

Luke I. 17. "And he shall go before him in the spirit and 
power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, 
and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a 
people prepared for the Lord." 

These words are a part of the message sent by the angel 
Gabriel to Zacharias. They are not a quotation from any of 
the prophets, but something new, which the angel was sent 
especially to make known to the devout priest, ver. 19. That 
the promised son was not to be Elijah is apparent, not only 
from the name by which he was to be called, but from the 
very nature of the promise itself, ver. 13; and so Zacharias 
understood it, ver. 18. To denote the energy of his character 
and ministry, the angel was bid to say, "he shall go before the 
Lord in the spirit and power of SJlias," which necessarily 
implies that he should have power to do all that Elias himself 
could do, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. The 
angel did not declare the result of his ministry, but only the 
purpose of it. We know that it failed. The nation rejected 
the Lord, and for that reason were rejected by him for a season. 
Hence, we may safely infer, that the words of Malachi (iv. 5, 6) 
remain to be fulfilled: — "He," viz. Elijah, "shall turn the 
hearts of the fathers to the children, and the hearts of the 
children to the fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a 



64 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

curse." The consequence of Elijah's failure is expressed in 
terms* which indicate God's purpose to prevent it. 

Although the prophet does not intimate what those prevent- 
ive means would be, we know that they were to be the new 
creating energies of the Holy Spirit, purchased by the sacrifice 
of Christ, which was accomplished through the sin of the 
people, to whom John was sent in the spirit and power of 
Elias. Indeed, the purpose of redemption is so connected 
with the national salvation of Israel, by God's covenant with 
Abraham and David, that we are authorized by his own word, 
to say that the one can fail as soon as the other, Deut. xxxii. 
8; Jer. xxxi. 35' — 37; xxxiii. 20 — 26. It is impossible to 
find a stronger assurance that God will not annihilate the 
earth by a second curse, than he has given in regard to the 
perpetuity and stability of his covenant with David. The 
ministry of Elijah therefore cannot fail; although John's 
ministry could be allowed to fail of its designed end, because 
God had ulterior purposes to accomplish, which, until after the 
death of Christ, were obscurely revealed. 

But whether we are to understand the prophet to signify 
that Elias will be sent in person before the second coming of 
the Lord, is, perhaps, not clear. The Jews of John's day 
evidently believed that Elias might appear under another 
name, or that another prophet might be sent in his place, 
John i. 21, but this is a question upon which we need not 
dwell; because the prophecy respects not the Church, but 
restored Israel, and the restitution of the Theocracy at the 
close of the present dispensation of the gospel among the 
Gentiles. It belongs to a future order of things. 

Matt. hi. 1, 2. "In those days came John the Baptist 
preaching, &c, and saying, Repent." 

Like the ancient prophets of Israel, John was a preacher of 
repentance. His inspiration was not occasional, but constant 
from his birth, he being at all times under the guidance of the 
Holy Ghost. He was qualified, therefore, without any human 
instruction, see John vii. 15, to teach the people in the 
knowledge of God, and of their duties to him and to each 
other, Luke iii. 10 — 14, as well as to show them their sins, 
and exhort them to amendment of life. From the time the 
Lord Jesus came to him for baptism, he appears to have been 

* Jahn says on this verse "^ [ne) non tantum estnegativum, prohibitivum, 
dissuasorium et dubitativum, sed notat etiam consilium prsecavendi, etsi dein, 
conditione non posita, reapse consequitur, quod prsecavere debebat, ut locus 
noster prorsus parallelus Hos. ii. 5 docet: Confer et Gen. iii. 3; xv 4; Jerem. 
xxxviii. 19; Prov. ix. 8; xxvi. 4." 



JOHN'S EMINENCE. 65 

aware of the issue of his own ministry, and consequently of the 
sacrifice of Christ, John i. 29 — 36 ; iii. 30. In knowledge as 
well as in holiness then, he was greatly in advance of the 
apostles, when they were first commissioned to preach the 
kingdom, Matt. x. 1 — 7. It was not a part of their com- 
mission to preach repentance but only the kingdom. Matt. x. 7, 
and although power was given them to work miracles, they 
were not qualified as teachers to instruct the people. One of 
them was a wicked man, and yet he received the same power 
to work miracles as the others, John vi. 70; Matt, xviii. 3. 
They were commanded to observe those who sat in Moses' seat, 
Matt, xxiii. 1 — 3. Not so John the Baptist. He asserted 
his prerogative to command and teach all, rulers and people 
alike, Matt. iii. 7 — 12; Luke iii. 7 — 18. He was God's 
messenger to the nation; a preacher of repentance, a preacher 
of the kingdom, having divine authority to command all to 
come to his baptism, from the Chief Priest to the lowest of the 
people, Matt. xxi. 31, 32. A greater than he of the sons of 
men had never appeared, and none greater than he will ever 
appear till all things shall be restored, and the kingdom of 
God shall come. See note on Acts iii. 22, 23. Then the least of 
God's restored people Israel — for such we suppose to be the 
Saviour's meaning in Matt. xi. 11 — being made perfectly holy, 
and dwelling in a new world, will be greater in knowledge and 
power, and all the other attributes of manhood than John; 
and, consequently, greater than any other mere man since the 
fall ; while the least of the glorified saints will be exalted to a 
far more exceeding glory than Israel in the flesh. 

We should greatly underrate the dignity of John were we to 
suppose he was inferior in grace or divine knowledge to the 
chiefest of the apostles, even after they received the inspiration 
of the Holy Spirit. The Saviour joins John with himself as 
in some sense a co-worker with him in fulfilling all righteous- 
ness, Matt. iii. 15, which shows the great excellence of John's 
character and office. The apostles indeed were endowed with 
different powers, suited to the different offices they were ap- 
pointed to fill. They were inspired to foretell things con- 
cerning the Church, which did not belong to John's office of 
forerunner. They could also perform miracles, although it was 
not in this that their greatness consisted, Luke x. 20; but 
that John understood the mystery of redemption through the 
sacrifice of Christ, and foresaw the unsuccessful issue of his own 
ministry, is plain from his own words, John i. 29, 36 ; iii. 30. 

These passages touching the character and office of John 
are important, although he was exclusively a minister of the 
circumcision, and his ministry fell within the old economy, 



66 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

because erroneous opinions on these points have occasioned the 
misinterpretation of other Scriptures.* 

John i. 22, 23. " Then they said unto him, who art thou? 
that we may give an answer to them that sent us. What sayest 
thou of thyself? .He said, I am the voice of one crying in the 
wilderness, Make straight the way of the Lord, as said the 
prophet Esaias." 

It is said that the Sadducees rejected the Scriptures, except 
the Pentateuch ; and if this opinion be correct, persons of that 
sect would have attached no importance to this quotation from 
Isaiah. Hence, perhaps, the Evangelist adds, vs. 24, that the 
embassy was composed of Pharisees, who admitted the inspira- 
tion of the prophet quoted. But it is more important to 
observe that this question was not put until John had positively 
affirmed that he was neither the Christ nor Elias, nor that 
prophet who was to fulfil the office of the one or the other. 
The avowed motive of the question was to be able to give to 
those who sent them a full answer upon the questions they had 
proposed, touching his person and character. He had told 
them thus far, only who he was not. They wished him to 
answer in his own words, affirmatively, who he was ; and now, 
as before, he answers according to the intent of his questioners. 
Had he said "I am John, the son of Zacharias," Luke iii. 2, 
he would have told them only what they already knew. They 
wished to know what religious or prophetical office or function 

* One popular commentator, after saying that John was greater than other 
prophets, remarks that "he that is of inferior standing to him in the Christian 
Church is greater than he. The Christian economy is so much in advance of 
that under which John lived and acted that he who is comparatively of low 
rank among the teachers here is greater than John, etc., etc. Behold the 
dignity and excellency of a Sabbath-school teacher." Another popular com- 
mentator remarks that "it could hardly be affirmed of the obscurest and most 
ignorant Christian, that he had clearer views than Isaiah or 'John. But of the 
apostles of the Saviour, of the first preachers who were with him, who heard 
his instructions, it might be said that they had more correct apprehensions 
than any of the ancient prophets or John." Scott also confines the comparison 
to the apostles and the New Testament prophets, saying, at the same time, 
that many extend it to all faithful ministers of the gospel and all true be- 
lievers. Adam Clarke says: "Now the least in this kingdom — the meanest 
preacher of a crucified, risen, and glorified Saviour, was greater than John, 
who was not permitted to live to see the plenitude of ihe gospel grace in the 
pouring out of the Holy Spirit." Such remarks can only arise from a great 
misconception of John's character, inspiration, and office. The observation of 
the Saviour we doubt not may be repeated at this moment with exact truth 
— that a greater than John the Baptist (Jesus only excepted) hath not yet 
arisen ; nor will a greater than he arise till the Lord shall come the second 
time, and baptize all Israel with the Holy Ghost, and establish his kingdom in 
manifested glory over the renewed earth. Then, indeed, he that is least in 
that earthly kingdom will be greater than John then was, while John, being 
exalted to a far exceeding glory, will be far greater than the greatest in that 
earthly kingdom will then be. 



PHARISEES' REJECTION OF JOHN. 67 

he claimed, and the scriptural warrant for his claim or preten- 
sion. His reply sets up a claim at least to a divine mission, 
and shows his warrant for it ; and though it was very humble, 
when compared with the dignity of Messiah and his office, he 
was distinguished above all the prophets who had previously 
appeared, in this respect, viz. that his mission and ministry had 
been expressly foretold, Isa. xl. 3. 

The Jews referred this passage and the chapter from which 
it is quoted to the times of Messiah, and rightly : for so John 
applied it. To the same epoch they also referred the prophecy 
of Malachi, iv. 5, 6, concerning Elijah. This answer of John, 
therefore, created a difficulty which could not be resolved con- 
sistently with the tenets of the learned. This will appear, if 
we consider that the Jews of that day had no belief, or even 
an idea, of two advents of Messiah, John xii. 34. Indeed, 
they could not believe in a second advent or mission of Messiah, 
without some foreknowledge of his rejection by the nation, at 
his first appearing. See Acts iii. 17, 21, and note on Acts 
ii. 14 — 36. Proceeding upon the assumption that Messiah 
would certainly be received by the nation, at his first coming, 
and thereupon immediately establish his kingdom, they referred 
this prophecy of Isaiah, as well as that in Malachi iii. 1, to 
Elijah, and the times of his mission, Mai. iv. 5, 6. It was an 
error of interpretation, yet too deeply rooted in their minds 
to be eradicated by those irrefragable proofs of John's divine 
mission, which fully convinced the masses of the people, Matt, 
xxi. 26. When, therefore, John denied that he was Elias, yet 
claimed to be the "voice" prophesied of by Isaiah, he divided 
two prophecies which, according to their interpretation, inspi- 
ration had joined. His pretensions, therefore, were contra- 
dictory, and, by his own showing, without- warrant. "Upon 
theological grounds, then, which appeared to them unques- 
tionable, they not only rejected his baptism, Luke vii. 30; 
Matt. xxi. 32, but altogether denied his divine mission." Mark 
xi. 30; Matt. xxi. 25. 

It is worthy of remark, that this theological difficulty had 
no effect upon the popular mind ; for although the people did 
not receive him as Elias, yet all of them believed he was a 
prophet, John x. 41, and had authority to baptize, Luke iii. 21. 
Many Christian commentators believe, with the learned Jews 
of that day, that these three prophecies, Isa. xl. 3 ; Mai. iii. 1 ; 
iv. 5, 6, refer to one and the same person, yet differ, not only 
from them, but from the mass of the people, in holding that 
the last of them, Mai. iv. 5, 6, was fulfilled in John the 
Baptist. 

John i. 25. " And they asked him and said unto him : Why 



68 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

baptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, 
neither that prophet?" 

This question furnishes a clue to some of the opinions of 
the learned Jews of that day concerning the subjects grouped 
in it. The persons sent were, we may presume, men of pru- 
dence and zeal for religion, conversant with the Scriptures and 
the interpretation put upon them by the learned. Without doubt 
they were selected from those most competent to investigate 
properly, what seemed to the Sanhedrim, the extraordinary 
pretensions of John. It was highly important to have John's 
pretensions thoroughly sifted, and if groundless, exposed, owing 
to the deep impression he had made on the popular mind, Luke 
iii. 15. The chief point of inquiry was his authority to baptize, 
not his assumption of the office of a religious teacher. He was 
of the sacerdotal race, and by birth entitled to a priestly 
education at Jerusalem. His father had been an officiating 
priest* and if deceased, as it is probable he was, Luke i. 18, 
yet was still remembered. Had John assumed merely the 
functions of an ordinary prophet or teacher, there would have 
been nothing in his ministry at variance with their national 
history or experience. But to baptize the nation implied the 
near approach of a great if not a radical change in the existing 
institutions, and the establishment of Messiah's kingdom, which 
the Scriptures taught them was the next in order. Had he 
been the Christ, or Elias, or that prophet foretold by Moses, 
Deut. xviii. 15 — 19, or, perhaps the meaning is, that prophet 
whose mission was foretold by Malachi, iv. 5, 6, under the 
name of Elijah, his authority to baptize the nation in prepara- 
tion for the impending change was conceded, as we infer from 
the question; but he had before denied that he was either. 
Hence the question itself imputed to John a usurpation of the 
sacred functions of another. That John so understood the 
question may be inferred from his answer to it: "I baptize 
with water" and in so doing, I do not usurp the functions of 
Messiah. As if he had said — "Ye err greatly in supposing 
that when Messiah, or Elias, or that prophet comes, either will 
perform the humble office which I perform in baptizing you 
with water, John iv. 2. So far from it, the only baptism 
appropriate to the office of Messiah is of resistless energy — 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire, Matt. iii. 11 ; Luke 
iii. 16, with which Elias, or that prophet you speak of, if he 
baptize at all, will in someway be connected. See Luke ix. 54; 
2 Kings i. 10, 12. What John adds, in vs. 27, was adapted, 
if not designed, to repel the implied charge of imposture. It 
amounts to this : I seek nothing for myself. On the contrary, 
I tell you that even now there is one among you so far exalted 



JOHN PERFORMED NO MIRACLES. 69 

above me that I am not worthy to do the humblest service for 
him. He will appear when my ministry shall be ended, but as 
yet you know not who he is." 

We may also infer from this question that the learned among 
the Jews believed Elias might appear under some other name, 
and such appears to have been the belief of the • common 
people, Matt. xvi. 14. They knew that the Baptist's proper 
personal name was John, and there was no propriety in asking 
him if he were Elias, unless they supposed that Elias might 
appear under another name. The question then, had respect 
to the reality of his person, not to his personal designation ; 
and as it was put to him with reference to the public office he 
was performing, it had respect to the functions as well as the 
person of Elias, and in this sense John answered it. Thus 
considered, his reply amounts to this: "I am not Elias, in 
name nor in person nor in office, nor am I the prophet ap- 
pointed to fulfil the office of Messiah or Elias. I am sent to 
baptize this people with water, which neither Messiah nor 
Elias nor that prophet will do." % 

If John were Elias in the sense of the questioners, or in the 
sense of the Scriptures, he could not have answered " I am not 
Elias," for that means I am not Elias in the sense of the 
Scriptures, nor in the sense of your question, nor in any other 
sense whatever. 

John x. 41. "John did no miracle, but all things that John 
spake of this man were true." 

The public ministry of John the Baptist was inseparably 
connected with that of our Lord. Both had respect to the 
same kingdom, the near approach of which was announced by 
both in the same terms, or nearly. Yet they were not concur- 
rent, Matt. iv. 12, 17; Mark i. 14, and they were in other 
respects distinctly marked — the one by the baptism of the 
nation, the other by miracles. If we reflect a moment upon 
what Paul said to the disciples at Ephesus, Acts xix. 4, we 
shall perceive that John's baptism had respect to the Lord 
Jesus as his successor, in respect of time. Hence, John the 
Evangelist is careful to say that Jesus did not baptize, even 
during the time of John's ministry, and in the verse under 
consideration, he discloses, by way of contrast, the fact that 
John did no miracles. To an observer of that day, the 
contrast of their times must have been very striking. It was 
designed to mark the difference between the proximate approach 
of the kingdom which John proclaimed, and the actual {jtapouaca) 
presence of the kingdom which the miracles of the Lord Jesus 
proved. There was an obvious reason for this arrangement 
which is not sufficiently considered. The miracles performed 



70 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

by our Lord, attested, in the strongest manner possible, the 
Divine appointment of John's baptism. For suppose our Lord 
had simply preached the kingdom as only near, or even as 
actually come in point of time, Mark i. 15, yet, without 
exhibiting the -evidence of its presence by his miraculous works, 
it would have been adding only the verbal testimony of one 
appearing to be merely a man, to the truth of John's proclama- 
tion. Or suppose that he had followed John simply as a 
baptizer and preacher of the coming kingdom, it would have 
tended rather to weaken than to confirm the belief of the 
nation in the authority of John to baptize. For why, it might 
be inquired, should the nation be baptized again, if the 
baptism of John was heaven-derived? But the miracles the 
Lord performed were visible, palpable evidence of such a 
change of times as John proclaimed; in other words, they 
proved the actual presence of the kingdom which John had 
announced as near. Hence we infer that the primary use and 
intent of our Lord's public miracles was retrospective, namely, 
to confirm John's proclamation, and evince, by miraculous 
evidence, his authority to baptize. The miracles which our 
Lord wrought, and those which his disciples wrought during 
their first mission, Matt. x. 5 — 8, were primarily designed to 
convince that generation of Jews, whom John was sent to 
baptize, by evidence addressed to their senses, of the actual 
presence of the kingdom which John proclaimed as near, and 
for which he had baptized them with water. 

Our Lord's miracles, therefore, fulfilled their chief design, 
whether the Jews of later generations believed them or not. 
Yet the destruction of their temple and commonwealth, and 
the dispersion of their people, considered in the light of the 
prophecies which they do acknowledge, ought to convince the 
Jews of later times that the Evangelists, who have recorded 
them and also the sin of their forefathers in rejecting them, 
are worthy of their belief. But considered as evidence of the 
Divine institution of the present dispensation of the gospel to the 
Grentiles, they have no persuasive effect or force upon the mind 
of the unbelieving Jew. He considers the whole of the gospels 
as belonging to the Christian Church, although in truth those 
parts of them which relate to the public ministry of John, and 
the public ministry of our Lord Jesus, fall within the Levitical 
economy, and would have been received by their forefathers as 
a part of their oracles, had they not rejected the kingdom 
which John and the Lord Jesus preached. 

Luke hi. 20, 21. "But Herod the Tetrarch being reproved, 
&c, added this above all, that he shut up John in prison." 
See Matt. iii. 13 ; Mark i. 14. 



John's imprisonment. 71 

If we duly reflect upon the history of John the Baptist, it 
will seem not a* little remarkable that his public career was 
closed by his imprisonment — not by his death. The whole 
purpose of John's life — existence we may say, Luke i. 17, — 
was to fulfil the office of forerunner of the Lord. We are not 
informed that any part of it was spent in the ordinary pursuits 
of life. From the cradle he passed to the solitude of the 
desert, Luke i. 80, and his sustenance was the spontaneous 
productions of the place, Matt. iii. 4; Mark i. 6. Even his 
clothing was not the product of art and human industry, Matt, 
iii. 4. Emerging at length from his solitude, without any other 
preparation for his office than the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, 
he entered into his public ministry and fully accomplished it, 
before Herod was allowed to molest him. See Acts xiii. 25. The 
remainder of his life — about eighteen months according to Light- 
foot — he spent in prison. But for what end? Was no divine 
purpose concerned in this event? Can we believe that all 
the other particulars of his life were included in the divine 
arrangement, and made to serve some purpose in the great 
scheme, while this important event — his life in prison — was left 
out ? Was it for John's sake that his life was thus prolonged 
after his work was done, or was it for the sake of his nation ? 
Or was it a necessary part of the divine plan, that his life 
should be prolonged during a part of the public ministry of the 
Lord Jesus ? The following suggestions may throw some light 
upon these questions, which may seem to the reader to be 
curious rather than useful, yet are not without their use. 

The ministry of John the Baptist and the public personal 
ministry of our Lord among the Jews, both tended to one and 
the same end. The nation was to be tried by the joint effect of 
both. The ministry and testimony of John were designed to 
prepare the way for the reception of the Lord, John i. 31; 
v. 33 — 36; Luke i. 17, and on the other hand, the testimony 
of John was to be enhanced and enforced by the testimony and 
miracles of the Lord Jesus. With the design, therefore, of 
bringing to bear upon the nation, as a means of trial, the 
concurrent and accumulated testimony of both, at a time when 
both were among them and might be received, John was 
preserved in prison awhile, to await, as it were, the influence on 
the public mind, of the miracles and testimony of the Lord 
Jesus in his favour. As if the Lord had said, " Peradventure 
this people will receive John when they shall see the wonderful 
works of that Mighty One, whose presence he proclaimed." 

Accordingly, after John had been several months in prison — 
seven or eight according to Lightfoot, Harm. § 31 — John being 
moved by the Holy Spirit, sent two of his disciples to Jesus 



72 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

with the question, "Art thou he that should come, or look we 
for another?" Matt. xi. 3; Luke vii. 19. He answered the 
question by appealing to his works, Matt. xi. 4 — 8 ; Luke vii. 
22, and then, upon the departure of the disciples, bore a most 
remarkable testimony to the character and office of John, 
Matt. xi. 7 — 13; Luke vii. 24 — 31, concluding it with this offer 
or appeal to the people : " And if ye will receive, he is Elias 
who was for to come."* That is, if ye will receive him, he 
shall be to you the same as the Elias foretold by the prophet 
Malachi iv. 5, 6, and all the blessings of Messiah's kingdom 
shall be immediately conferred upon you as a people. For if 
ye receive him, ye will receive me, and I will gather you and 
protect you with the most affectionate care. See Matt, xxiii. 
37; Luke xiii. 34; xix. 41 — 44; Ps. lxxxi. 13—16; Acts i. 6. 

It was with a view to this transaction, we suggest, that John's 
life was prolonged in prison about eighteen months, during all 
which time this offer of John by the Lord to the people for 
their acceptance continued, as it were, to speak to them. 
If the reader should reject this explanation, we ask him what 
purpose the life of John in prison was designed to answer? 

Matt. iv. 12 — 17. " Now when Jesus heard that John was 
cast into prison," &c, " From that time Jesus began to 
preach," &c. 

The ministry of John was appointed to precede the ministry 
of the Lord Jesus. John's description of himself as one going 
before, implies as much. Matt. iii. 11; xi. 10; John i. 27; 
Acts xiii. 25 ; Mai. iii. 1. Hence the fact, that Jesus appeared 
publicly, as a preacher of the kingdom, as soon as John was 
cast into prison, implies that John's ministry was by that 
event fully ended. Had John been set at liberty, we have no 
reason to believe that he would have resumed his ministry, for 
the reasons already suggested. His life was spared for a dif- 
ferent purpose. See note on Luke iii. 20, 21. We infer that 
his principal work of baptizing had been fully performed. Luke 
iv. 21. All the people had received his baptism, except those 
who had voluntarily and wickedly rejected it. Luke vi. 29, 30. 
The words dnoTOze'f "from that time," in the 17th verse, there- 

* The whole sense of this verse is changed by supplying the word it. Neither 
the Syriac nor the Vulgate version supplies the omission at all. By this inter- 
polation the word receive (fo^io-Bai) is made to signify believe, or give credit to 
the declaration, which to sav the least is an unusual sense. See Matt. x. 14, 
40, 41 ; xviii. 5, and Schmidt's Greek Concordance, <fi%o/u*i. 

f These words are employed several times where the exact time of an event 
is meant to be denoted, Matt. xvi. 21; xxvi. 16; Luke xvi. 16, and it is im- 
portant to notice the particularity, in order to apprehend clearly and fully the 
sense of the writer. Thus, from Matt. xvi. 21, we learn that the Lord did not 
speak to his disciples of his approaching sufferings and death until the mystery 



COMMENCEMENT OF CHRIST'S MINISTRY. 73 

fore denote with precision, the commencement of the Lord's 
ministry and the termination of John's. 

The Lord did not begin to preach before, because the times 
appointed for the baptism of the people had not elapsed. He 
did not delay after, because John's imprisonment marked the 
completion of the times appointed for the national baptism. 
Hence, according to Mark i. 15, the Lord commenced his pub- 
lic preaching by saying : The time is fulfilled for the coming of 
the kingdom, and the evidence of the fact he proceeds imme- 
diately to exhibit to the people by his miraculous works. See 
John ii. 3, 4 ; x. 41. 

Matt. iv. 17. From that time Jesus began to preach and to 
say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven" — the heavens— " is 
at hand" — hath come nigh. 

Our Lord's personal ministry among the Jews may be con- 
sidered under three heads or functions. We may regard him 
(1) either as a preacher of the kingdom, or (2) as a preacher of 
the law, or (3) in the domestic or private relation of a teacher 
of his disciples. The first two of these functions were public, 
and he exercised them in harmony with the economy of law, 
which still continued in force. Matt. v. 17; and see note on 
Matt, xxvii. 51 — 53; Luke xxiii. 45. His instructions to his 
disciples, apart from the multitudes, were frequently propheti- 
cal, and suited to the dispensation of grace which was to follow. 
To these he alluded, especially in his last discourse with them. 
John xiv. 26. This distinction is marked and very important, 
Matt. xiii. 11; xvi. 20; Luke x. 23, if not indispensable to 
the clear comprehension of the gospels.* 

The text under consideration, it is unnecessary to say, be- 
longs to our Lord's function or office of preaching the kingdom. 
The import of the proclamation is explained in the note on 
Matt. iii. 2; xix. 28; and see note on Acts iii. 21. To the 
same function we refer (1) the act of calling and commissioning 
the apostles to preach the kingdom, and conferring upon them 
the power to perform miracles, in proof of the proclamation. 

of the incarnation was revealed to Peter. But (airo tsts) from that time forth 
he began to show unto his disciples the mystery of his death and resurrection, 
which were next in order. Matt. xvii. 22, 23; xx. 17 — 19. From Matt. xxvi. 
16, we learn, that from the time Judas covenanted secretly with the priests to 
betray his Master, he was continually watching for an opportunity to fulfil his 
part of the agreement, and earn the promised bribe. Luke xvi. 16 proves, that 
the commencement of John's ministry, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Ceesar, 
was an epoch in the history of the nation. A new order of things then com- 
menced, and new responsibilities attached. Matt. iii. 10. 

* The reader will find great advantage in assorting and arranging the mat- 
ter of the four Gospels according to this plan of distribution. It may be done 
in parallel columns, in the order of time, blending, however, the four Evan- 
gelists. 

10 



'74 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Matt. iv. 18—22; x. 1—8; Luke ix. 1, 2; x. 1—17. (2) The 
public miracles of our Lord, Matt. iv. 23 — 25, and the miracles 
performed by the apostles under their first commission. (3) The 
parables or similitudes of the kingdom which were publicly de- 
livered. Matt.'xiii. 24—34; xxi. 33—44; xxii. 1—14; Luke 
xix. 11 — 27. These the reader will regard as examples. He 
will find other passages which belong to the same category. 

Matt. iv. 23, 24. " And Jesus went about all Galilee teach- 
ing in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the king- 
dom, and healing all manner of sickness, and all manner of 
disease among the people ; and his fame went throughout all 
Syria, and they brought unto him all sick people that were 
taken with divers diseases and torments, and those that were 
possessed with devils, and those that were lunatic, and those 
that had the palsy, and he healed them." 

The miracles of our Lord which have been circumstantially 
recorded, are about forty in number, but he performed many 
more which are referred to, as in these verses, only in general 
terms. John xx. 30 ; xxi. 25 ; xii. 37. They may be distri- 
buted into several kinds or classes, according to their nature; 
such as (1) miracles of healing, (2) of raising the dead, (3) of 
casting out devils, (4) of multiplying food, (5) miracles of 
power in suspending or controlling the laws and powers of 
nature, (6) miracles of power over the fish of the sea, (7) the 
transfiguration of his person, (8) the miracle of conferring upon 
his apostles the power to work miracles, (9) the miraculous 
exertion of power over the officers, soldiers, priests, and others 
who apprehended him, (10) to these may be added the miracles 
which attended his death and resurrection. 

Those of the Lord's miracles which were publicly wrought in 
proof of the proclamation of the kingdom, John v. 36, for the 
most part belonged to the first, second, third, and fourth classes 
before mentioned. They are alluded to, except the fourth, in 
general terms, in the answer which he sent to John the Baptist. 
Matt, xi, 4, 5. These were part of his public instruction to 
the people. They were such works as the prophets foretold the 
Messiah should perform, Isa. xxix. 18, 19; xxxv. 5, 6, and 
consequently notes or marks by which the people might learn 
his claim to that character. John x. 25 ; xv. 24. The miracles 
of the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth classes were performed 
in the presence of the disciples, or some of them only. These, 
therefore, may be considered as a part of the private discipline 
of the apostles, and designed to qualify them for the offices they 
were to fulfil in the approaching dispensation. See 2 Peter i. 
17, 18; John i. 14. The others were performed with some 
special design. 



SERMON OX THE MOUNT. 75 

A few of the miracles mentioned by John, (ii. iii. 2 ; iv. 50,) 
were performed before the imprisonment of John the Baptist, 
and of course before the Lord entered publicly upon his minis- 
try. These, therefore, belong to the category of private instruc- 
tion, rather than his public functions. 

Many of our Lord's miracles appear to have been wrought 
spontaneously on his part, that is, without the prayer or request 
of those who received the benefit of them, or the exercise of 
faith on their part; see Luke vii. 11 — 15, John v. 1 — 9; 
while others were wrought in answer to the request or entrea- 
ties of those who sought the benefit. In these instances faith 
was the indispensable prerequisite or condition of the gift ; see 
note on Acts iii. 16. The miracles which the Lord wrought 
through the apostles under their first commission, Matt. x. 8, 
prove this distinction. They were not commissioned to teach 
the people, Matt. x. 7, nor were they capable of doing so; nor 
were they required to make any distinction between those upon 
whom they were to exert their miraculous powers, but to give 
to all as freely as they had received, Matt. x. 8. 

The miracles mentioned in the verses under consideration, 
appear to have been performed without solicitation. In the 
eighth and subsequent chapters of this Gospel the Evangelist 
gives instances of miracles wrought through the faith of those 
who were healed or of others. These distinctions are important, 
and they are stated in this place with a view to particular 
remarks hereafter. 

Matt. v. vi. vii. These chapters are to be referred to our 
Lord's functions as a preacher of the law. Taken in connec- 
tion with the preceding chapters, they form a complete proof 
of his Messiahship, and for that purpose they are introduced in 
this place, according to the method of the Evangelist, explained 
in the note on Matt. i. 1. It is purely a legal discourse, 
adapted to the economy of law then in force, without a single 
allusion to the way of salvation by grace, through faith in 
Christ, but characterized by a Divine elevation and purity, 
which has commanded the admiration even of Deistical writers. 
It is in fact the perfect law of the kingdom he preached, verse 
48, applied to men in the state of apostasy, as most of the 
particular precepts prove. Verses 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 
39, 40, &c. 

It is remarkable too, that although the Lord did not assume 
the title or character of Christ, he represented himself as 
having come to fulfil the law, verse 17, and as one who would 
be addressed, Lord, Lord, in the day of judgment, having power 
to receive into, and exclude from, the kingdom of heaven, vii. 
21, 23. The miracles he had performed proved his right to the 



76 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

character lie claimed, which was confirmed by the sublimity and 
excellence of his doctrine. The people were astonished at the 
majesty of his demeanor and the authority with which he 
delivered his precepts. The particulars of this discourse we 
do not propose to comment upon, except a few which cast light 
upon some topics which will be brought to the notice of the 
reader hereafter. 

Matt. v. 17. " Think not that I am come to destroy" (dis- 
solve the obligations of) "the law or the prophets. I am not 
come to destroy but to fulfil" the law and the prophets. 

The burden of the prophets, we are taught by St. Peter, is 
the restitution of all things, Acts iii. 21, 24; see note. Their 
predictions extend to the whole futurity of the earth, and of 
man as the inhabitant thereof, Ps. cxv. 16; xxxvii. 11; Matt. 
v. 5. The law was ordained as a means to that end, Heb. x. 1 ; 
Col. ii. 17 ; Gal. iii. 19 ; and for that reason, the whole of it, 
not excepting its minutest requirements, must be fulfilled. 
Hence our Lord added with a solemn asseveration — 

Verse 18. " Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle 
shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled." 

These verses, therefore are very comprehensive, and to 
understand their meaning fully, we must be able to compre- 
hend not only all that the prophets have foretold, but all that 
the law, in all its parts, moral, ceremonial, and typical, fore- 
shadows or requires. For the law is not only preceptive but 
predictive; and its preceptive parts, as before observed, are 
subordinate to the predictive, that is, in the sense of a means 
to an end. Hence they are often spoken of conjunctively, as 
in this place. See Matt. xi. 13 ; Luke xvi. 16. Hence, too, 
the sufferings of Christ, which were typically shown by the 
sacrifices appointed by the law, are joined with the universal 
glory that should follow, which the prophets so much delight to 
dwell upon, 1 Pet. i. 11. The institution of the Sabbath and 
of the sabbatical year, Lev. xxv., Deut. xv., and the duties 
connected therewith, is another example. The separation of 
the seventh year as a rest, and the blessing of God on the sixth 
year, typically set forth good things to come, which were more 
explicitly announced by the prophets, Heb. iv. 4, 9. 

For these reasons, we do not regard these words of the 
Saviour as intended to intimate merely a change of the Jewish 
ritual, or the abolition of ordinances and the institution of a 
more spiritual worship, John iv. 23, although these were 
included, but as having respect to his perfected work, when he 
shall have fulfilled all things written in the law and in the 
prophets and the Psalms concerning himself, Luke xxiv. 44 ; see 
1 Cor. xv. 24 — 28. Yet as the fulfilling of the law and the 



PROHIBITION OF OATHS. 77 

prophets was to be accomplished through the sufferings and 
death of Christ, these words concealed a mystery, which could 
be understood only by subsequent events and the teachings of 
the Holy Spirit, through the apostles, after the ascension and 
glorification of the Lord Jesus. 

According to the foregoing interpretation of these verses, 
the prophecies concerning the restoration and conversion of 
Israel, and the establishment of Messiah's kingdom in outward 
and visible glory over the whole earth, were within the Saviour's 
meaning. See notes on Matt. ii. 18, citing Jer. xxxi. 15; 
Luke xxiv. 25, 26: Acts iii. 19, 21—23. For these were 
among the great things which the prophets had foretold. We 
add, that even now, he is as really and truly fulfilling, from 'his 
mediatorial throne, the prophecies concerning himself as when 
he was a man of sorrows on the earth. 

In explaining the words of the Saviour, especially those 
which respect his office and work, the largest sense we can con- 
ceive of falls immeasurably below the fulness of his own con- 
ception. By not attending to this consideration, (which may 
be safely assumed as a rule of interpretation,) we fail of much 
of the instruction we might otherwise receive. Against error 
arising from defective views of Divine truth, we should ever 
be upon our guard; because from such often spring errors of 
perversion, and the denial of other important if not essential 
truths which are plainly revealed. 

Matt. v. 34. u But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither 
by heaven, for it is God's throne ; nor by the earth, for it is 
his footstool; neither by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the 
Great King." Ps. xlviii. 2. 

The institution of the oath is a proof and a consequence of 
man's apostasy from God. If all men were perfectly holy, and 
the will of God done universally by all on earth, as it is in 
heaven, no purpose or occasion to be served by an oath could 
arise. A man's word would be as sure a warrant for belief as 
his oath. Can we suppose that the holy beings who surround 
the throne of God confirm their communications to each other 
by an oath f or need to do so? 

The necessity of an oath for confirmation, Heb. vi. 16, 
cometh from the evil, or deceitfulness, of men's natures, and 
this appears to be the meaning of the Saviour in the thirty- 
seventh verse. But the law of the kingdom, of which this pre- 
cept is a part, requires of men that they should be perfect in 
their natures and conduct, even as God himself is perfect, Matt. 
v. 48. If they were such, we repeat, they could have no occa- 
sion to swear at all. But because men do not and cannot fulfil 
the law of God's kingdom, by reason of their sinful natures, 



78 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

the solemn oath, as well as other departures from the strict 
requirements of this law, Matt. xix. 8, see Acts xvii. 30, were 
permitted to them in their fallen condition, until the time of the 
reformation or restitution of all things in the kingdom come. 
Even God himself, in condescension to the weakness of men 
and the habitual mistrust of their natures, which springs from 
their fallen condition, has confirmed his own word with an oath, 
though it is impossible for him to deceive, Heb. vii. 20 — 28 ; 
Luke i. 73; Acts ii. 30. 

We shall not apprehend the force or application of this pre- 
cept and of some others contained in this sublime discourse, 
unless we regard our Lord as preaching or declaring the law of 
the holy, heavenly kingdom, which he taught his disciples to 
pray for, as yet to come. As a rule of duty it is now and ever 
will be binding, because men are even now and ever will be 
bound to be perfect. But as a rule of practice it was not 
enforced during the Levitical economy, nor was it designed to 
be under the present Christian dispensation, as some have sup- 
posed. According to this distinction we explain James v. 12. 
Judicial oaths are necessary to the well-being and orderly 
government of mankind in their present fallen and imperfect 
state. But even these, not less than all profane oaths, will not 
be allowed when the kingdom of God shall be established on 
earth. The judicial affirmation appears to be as much within 
the spirit of this precept as the oath. 

Matt. vi. 9. "Our Father which art in heaven," (^ar^o 
'fjficov b iv rots obpavoc^. In the original Greek, as well* as 
in the Latin Vulgate, we find the plural heavens, which our 
critics, with general, if not one consent, consider a Hebraism. 
It is suggested, however, that the plural is here used with the 
design to convey an allusion to the omnipresence of the Father. 
By heavens we are to understand the whole creation, Gen. i. 1, 
the universal system of suns and planets established in their 
orders, in illimitable space; and we address the Father as filling 
them all by his presence, and, of course, as present with us. 
These form the Father's (olxca John xiv. 2,) house or dwelling 
place. See Camerarius and Theopliylact on Jojm xiv. 2. 
The same allusion is conveyed in Heb. iii. 4, " Every house is 
builded by some one, but he that built all things" — all worlds, 
as a house or dwelling place for himself — "is God." The same 
designation or description of the Father, occurs frequently in the 
Gospel of Matthew, see v. 16, 45, 48; vi. 1, 9; vii. U, 21; x. 
32, 33; xii. 50; xviii. 10, and always with evident allusion to 
the same Divine attribute. The word is also used by him in 
the singular, see vi. 10, 20, when no such reference is intended, 
or where the limited nature of the subject forbids the plural 



THE EARTH AS A DWELLING-PLACE. 79 

sense. To call such expressions Hebraisms does not signify 
much. The Jew might with equal propriety call our form (in 
the singular) a Gientilism. The question is, which form of 
expression is best adapted to the nature of the subject, and 
most accurately sets forth the idea intended to be signified? 
If it should be said that the ancient Hebrews had no adequate 
or correct idea of astronomy, it may be conceded. But the 
words of Scripture were all dictated by the Holy Spirit, and 
the words under consideration were uttered by him who made 
all things, and certainly had no need of the teachings of human 
wisdom or science. 

Matt. vi. 10. " Thy kingdom come; thy will be done on 
earth as it is in heaven." 

These petitions are very comprehensive. They imply much 
more than most who repeat them suppose. At the time they 
were dictated they implied the sufferings and death of Christ, 
his resurrection and ascension to glory: for these were the 
divinely appointed means for restoring the kingdom of God to 
this earth. They still imply the filling up and completion 
of his elect church and the second coming of the Lord to de- 
stroy the man of sin and purge the earth of its abominations. 
But, what we wish especially to remark, they are conclusive 
evidence of God's determinate purpose and counsel. The 
Saviour certainly would not not have dictated petitions for 
things which the Father had not designed to accomplish, or 
rather had designed never to accomplish. See Acts xv. 18. 
We conclude then, from this prayer, that the curse of God 
shall be removed from the earth. The creature — physical 
nature, all the irrational tribes, as well as man — shall be 
delivered from the bondage of the curse, the kingdom of Satan 
be destroyed, and mankind, as inhabitants of this earth, will 
be restored to perfect holiness and communion with God. 
Less than these cannot give reality to these petitions. We 
learn from them also the largeness, the perfection, and the 
glory of the Saviour's work. What orb in the universe will be 
more glorious than this, when these petitions shall be fully 
granted? Will He then, afterwards, annihilate or utterly 
destroy it with another curse? Mai. iv. 6. Why this, rather 
than any other, in which his will is done as perfectly as in 
heaven, where his throne is? This petition, then, proves also 
the perpetuity of the earth as a dwelling-place for man. Matt. 
v. 5, Ps. cxv. 16. 

Matt. viii. 2, 3. " And behold a leper came and worshipped 
him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean. 
And Jesus put forth his hand and touched him, saying, I will : 
Be thou clean." 



' 80 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

The miracles mentioned in chap. iv. 23, appear to have been 
wrought by the Saviour of his own accord, without having been 
asked to perform them. See John v. 7, 13, 14. The imme- 
diate and necessary effect of them was, to spread his fame, 
and induce others from far and near to bring their sick to him 
for cure, iv. 24. No mention, however, is made of the faith 
of those whom he healed, nor do we suppose it was demanded 
in all cases as a prerequisite. They were the appointed 
proofs of the presence (jiapouaca) of the kingdom which the 
Lord preached, see Matt. xi. 4, 5, John xv. 24, and they are 
mentioned in almost immediate connection with his proclama- 
tion. It was necessary that the proofs should be exhibited, 
irrespectively of the faith or worthiness of those who received 
the benefit of them, John ii. 3; v. 4 — 8, Luke vii. 11 — 15, 
and in many instances, no doubt, were so. It was with this 
view, as we suppose, the Evangelist mentioned, in general 
terms, the miracles of the Lord, in the place just referred to. 
In this chapter he resumes the subject of miracles, not merely 
as a proof of the presence of the kingdom, but for the further 
purpose of proving the power of faith in the scheme of redemp- 
tion. The observation is also important, as showing the 
method or plan of the Evangelist. See note on Matt. i. 1. 

The miracle recorded in these verses was not publicly per- 
formed, nor was it intended as a public proof to the people ; 
for the leper was commanded not to tell it to any man. The 
motive of it was mercy to the leper, and the means or medium 
of it was the leper's faith. See ix. 23 — 29. This is a new 
topic, and it is proper in this place to suggest some consider- 
ations, which are applicable to all such cases. 

The effects of faith, in the theological sense, are wholly of a 
spiritual nature. They are to be sought for in the soul of him 
who exercises it. This limitation of the power of faith is a 
natural consequence of the cessation of miracles; for the out- 
ward visible, or rather physical effects of faith, are no longer, or 
at most very seldom, seen. Yet this is a very imperfect repre- 
sentation of the power of faith, and of the ends which it is 
designed to serve in the world of redemption. The miracles of 
healing wrought through faith, are so many examples of its 
physical or outward effects upon the bodies of men, and the 
Lord repeatedly ascribes to faith a power over material nature, 
Matt. xvii. 20; xxi. 21; Mark xi. 22, 23; Luke xvii. 6; see 
1 Cor. xiii. 2; Heb. xi. 29, 30. It is in fact the power, or, 
what amounts to the same thing, the established medium for 
the transmission of Divine power, in the renovation of the whole 
nature of man, of his body, as well as of his soul. By faith 
Enoch was translated, that he should not see death, Heb. xi. 5, 



THE OFFICE OF FAITH IN MIRACLES. 81 

and by their faith the bodies of those of the Lord's people who 
shall be alive at his coming, will be changed into conformity 
with his glorious body, and be caught up to meet him. 1 Cor. 
xv. 51; Philip, iii. 21; 1 Thess. iv. 17. By faith (we mean by 
the term, an abiding and implicit confidence in, and reliance 
upon the Saviour) will the souls of departed saints be invested 
with bodies of glory and power by the Holy Spirit in their 
completed regeneration at the day of the Lord's coming; (see 
foot-note on Acts ii. 47 ;) and by the same means will their 
union to him, as their Head, be for ever maintained. Thus 
considered, faith, or that principle (affectio animce) which has 
been described, (call it confidence, reliance upon, or trust in 
Christ, for all the soul hopes for or desires, as the reader 
pleases,) is a principle or law, or an established medium for the 
transmission or action of Divine power in the work and world of 
redemption, as really so as what we call gravitation is an estab- 
lished law, or rule of action in the universe of material nature; 
and one lesson these miracles of healing were designed to incul- 
cate is, that as the bodily infirmities and sicknesses of men 
were cured through their faith in Jesus, so by the same means 
their bodies of sin and death will be transformed into bodies of 
life and immortal glory at the Lord's coming. 

It is not an objection to this view of the uses and effects of 
faith that its first operation is upon the soul, in which the 
work of regeneration begins. In its source, faith is a grace, or 
a gift of God — a medium of connection between the soul and 
Grod, through Christ, and a means of spiritual benefit in this 
life, even although no other should be received. These, how- 
ever, are its elementary uses or benefits. Its full power, as a 
law, will be developed only in the world of redemption, when 
the glorified saint, having been made one with Christ, by the 
power of the Holy Spirit working through this medium or 
means, will find that not one jot or tittle shall fail, of all the 
Lord has said concerning the power of faith. Matt. xvii. 20 ; 
xxi. 21; Mark xi. 22, 23. 

Erasmus regarded this miracle as teaching, by a figure, from 
whence, and by what faith, those diseased with the leprosy of 
soul should seek a remedy.* But the typical import, as we 
conceive, respects the body, and that perfect cure or relief 
from mortality and sin which it shall receive from the Lord, 
through faith at his coming. It yields the lesson Erasmus 
derived from it, but its typical import is prophetical of other 
and greater things. 

* Typo quoclam docturus eos, qui lepra, laborarent animorum, uncle et qua 
fide deberent remedium petere." Paraphrasis in loco. 

11 



• 82 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Matt. vni. 5 — 13. "And when Jesus was entered into 
Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him, 
and saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, 
grievously tormented. And Jesus said unto him, I will come and 
heal him. The centurion answered and said, Lord, I am not 
worthy that thou shouldst come under my roof; but speak the 
word only, and my servant shall be healed. For I am a man 
under authority, having soldiers under me : and I say to this 
man, Go, andhegoeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; 
and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it. When Jesus heard 
it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say 
unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel. 
And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and 
west and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, 
in the kingdom of heaven : but the children of the kingdom 
shall be cast into outer darkness ; there shall be weeping and 
gnashing of teeth. And Jesus said unto the centurion, Go thy 
way ; and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee. And 
his servant was healed in the self-same hour." See Luke 
v ii. 1_10. 

The miracle we have just considered was performed on a 
Jewish leper, in answer to his own prayer of faith. That 
which the Evangelist has recorded in these verses, was wrought 
through the faith of a Gentile, not upon himself but upon 
another person. The reason for introducing the account of it 
in this place, probably was to show a diversity of the operation 
of faith, and to furnish another illustration of its power. 
It was a favour shown to the centurion, though a stranger to 
Israel, in answer to his faith. This is expressly taught. "As 
thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee" verse 13. We are 
not told that the servant exercised faith, or was even conscious 
of what his Master was doing in his behalf. In this particular, 
it is like that wrought upon the daughter of the Syrophenician 
woman. Matt. xv. 22—28; Mark vii. 24—30. These ex- 
amples teach, that in the economy of the kingdom, the faith of 
one person may be made the means of conveying blessings to 
another, who may not be capable of exercising the faith ne- 
cessary to receive them. The raising of Jairus's daughter, 
Matt. ix. 18; Mark v. 35, 36; Luke viii. 41, 50, is an 
eminent example of this power or operation of faith, and of the 
diffusiveness of its benefits. James v. 15. This principle is fully 
understood and recognized by the Church, in respect to spiritual 
blessings. But the typical import of these bodily cures, as 
intimated at the end of the last note, suggests another lesson. 
In the day of the Lord's coming to receive his living elect, 
1 Thess. iv. 17, who can say what numbers will not receive 



. CHRIST'S BEARING OUR INFIRMITIES. 83 

eternal blessings through the faith of others ? Pious parents, 
surrounded by groups of children, see Mark v. 42, whom they 
have dedicated to God by baptism, and for whom they daily 
and hourly offer the prayer of faith — will these be separated? 
the parents taken and their little ones left ? Rather will not 
the prayer of faith, like that of the centurion, the Syro- 
phenician woman, and Jairus, be heard and answered? Heb. 
xi. 7. 

The faith of the centurion gave our Lord occasion to refer in 
general terms to coming events. His public allusions to the 
rejection of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, were 
comparatively few and indistinct, especially towards the begin- 
ning of his ministry. As he was about to close it, some of his 
parables very significantly set them forth. See Matt. xxii. 
1—10; xxi. 33—44. 

Matt. viii. 17. "That it might be fulfilled which was spoken 
by Esaias the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and 
bare our sicknesses." 

This is a quotation from Isa. liii. 4. The word translated 
infirmities is rendered (h[iapTio.<z) sins by the LXX. and it 
appears to have been taken in that sense in 1 Pet. ii. 24. In 
the authorized English version of the Old Testament it is 
rendered griefs. Grotius was of the opinion that the word 
admits both senses. The Evangelist quotes the prophecy in 
connection with the miracles of healing which the Saviour 
performed upon the sick, and persons possessed with devils, 
which he says fulfilled it. If we regard these miracles as 
typical of the completed regeneration of man in his body as well 
as spiritual nature (see note on verses 2, 3,) we shall have no 
difficulty in reconciling either the Septuagint with the Gospel, 
or the Evangelist with the apostle. The cause or the origin of 
the infirmities, griefs, and sicknesses, of which the prophet 
speaks, is sin. Without bearing the latter, the Saviour could 
not, consistently with the Divine plan, bear the former. 
Hence he bore both. In the full and perfect sense he bore 
them on the cross, as the apostle Peter expressly alleges, and 
by bearing them, he wrought out the work of redemption of 
man from sin and all its consequences, moral and physical. 
But these miracles of healing were not that perfect work. 
They were examples, in a comparatively small way, of that 
perfect, thorough work which the Lord will perform upon all 
his redeemed ones when he will come to receive them to him- 
self, and inaugurate his kingdom on earth.* . 

* The remark of Grotius, though not quite correct, is worthy of being 
quoted : Sicut veterum res gestae rerum, Christi figuram habuerunt, ita et 
ipsius Christi actiones alise aliis denotanclis inservierunt. Nam beneficium 



84 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

It is worthy of observation that St. Matthew makes more 
quotations from the Old Testament Scriptures than either of 
the other Evangelists — a proof, as it is supposed, that he wrote 
his Gospel especially for the Jews. The number of quotations 
which he makes is thirty-five. 

Matt. viii. 20. "And Jesus saith to him, the foxes have 
holes, and the birds of the air nests, [rather shelters, Trench, 
148,] but the Son of Man hath not where to lay his head." 

The denomination, or title, "Son of Man," which our Lord 
here assumes and applies to himself, is taken from Psalm viii. 4. 
That this Psalm has respect to the Lord Jesus Christ is proved 
by Heb. ii. 8, 9, where it is quoted, and so applied. The 
expression occurs very frequently in the Gospels, and frequently 
in connection with words which denote also his Divine nature. 
See Matt. xxvi. 45 and chap. xxiv. In that divine sense he 
was understood by the high priest when questioned as to his 
Messiahship. Matt. xxvi. 64, 65. In his answer he had 
allusion, it is probable, to Dan. vii. 13, which may be regarded 
as a visionary representation of the future fulfilment of the 
eighth Psalm. The frequent use of this description or desig- 
nation of our blessed Lord, is designed to inculcate, among 
other things, the truth that he was really and truly a man. 
This was essential to his priestly, as well as kingly office. Heb. 
iv. 14, 15. He says of himself, that the. Father hath given 
him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of 
Man, John v. 27; as if his manhood were an indispensable 
qualification for the office of a judge over men ; and Paul, in 
his address to the Athenians, Acts xvii. 31, refers pointedly to 
the manhood of Christ when he says, "God will judge, or 
rule, the world in righteousness by that man, (that is, by the 
Adam, ben Adam,) whom he hath ordained." See 1 Cor. xv. 
45—47. 

What our Lord here says of himself, shows the extreme 
poverty of his condition as a man ; being less provided for than 
the irrational animals. The declaration was well calculated 
to discourage the Scribe, if he cherished hopes, as perhaps he 

corporibusredditse sanitatis quinfiguram remissionis peccatorum et sanatarum 
mentium tulerit, dubitari non potest. Bis ergo impletum est vaticinium,' &c. 
We do not adopt the notion, that this prophecy was twice fulfilled, as Grotius 
here supposes, nor that the cures performed on the diseased bodies of the sick, 
were figurative of a work wrought, or to be wrought on the souls of men 
merely, as both Erasmus and Grotius appear to have regarded them. The 
figure or the type has respect to the completed work of man's redemption, viz. 
to what St. Paul calls the adoption, to wit, the redemption of the body. 
Rom. viii. 23; Luke xxi. 28. Compare Luke xxi. 28 with Rom. viii. 19 and 
23 in the original: stm/jsits ret; K&p£\as=a7ri>iuf)u<fcx.iu\ — 6.7rokvrf>0)><ri; Cju.uv=^thv 
LMhwrpwwv rev aoofAaro; u/ucev. 



Christ's title, son of man. 85 

did, of wealth or worldly greatness, from becoming a follower 
of the Lord. It does not appear from the narrative that he 
actually joined the company of the disciples. 

Matt. viii. 23—27. See Mark iv. 39; Luke viii. 22—25. 

The miracle recorded in these verses belongs to the fifth 
class mentioned in the note to Matt. iv. 23, 24. It was not 
performed in the presence of the multitudes, but only before 
the disciples who were then with him. It was not therefore 
intended as a public proof of his Messiahship, or of the presence 
of the kingdom which he preached, but for some end or purpose, 
in which at that time his disciples only were concerned. The 
same observations may be applied to the miracles recorded in 
Luke v. 4—9; Matt. xiv. 25—33; xvii. 27; Mark vi. 47—51; 
John vi. 17 — 21; xxi. 6. This distinction is important. 
Indeed, all the miracles of this class belong to our Lord's 
Adamic, rather than to his Messianic character and relations. 
Notice the connection. In the 20th verse the Evangelist 
records for the first time our Lord's assumption of the title or 
character, "Son of Man." He then proceeds almost imme- 
diately to the relation of this miracle, leaving us to infer that 
it was performed by him in that character. The title is taken 
from Psalm viii., and was assumed, no doubt, with reference 
to the exalted condition and attributes there ascribed to him. 
This conclusion is justified by the application which Paul makes 
of this Psalm in Heb. ii. 5 — 7. If we would get a proper 
apprehension of the majesty of the character thus denoted, we 
must ponder such passages as Dan. vii. 18 ; Rev. i. 13 ; xiv. 
14; 1 Cor. xv. 45; Matt. xxvi. 64; xii. 8; ix. 6; John iii, 13. 
Yet in assuming the title, the Lord declared his extreme des- 
titution at that time of worldly possessions. 2 Cor. viii. 9. The 
miracle removes the apparent discrepancy between what he 
said of himself and the universal absolute dominion over 
creatures and the works of God, which the Psalmist ascribes 
to him in that character. It was a partial unfolding of the 
profound mystery of his person; and the recording of the 
miracle in this place, is a sort of commentary upon his words, 
and we may add (digressively) upon what he afterwards said to 
Pilate, John xviii. 36, "My kingdom is not of this world." 
See notes on John xviii. 36. 

The connection thus developed, is logical, although the con- 
necting thought is latent, and must be supplied from the Psalm 
from which the title itself is taken. But why, it may be 
inquired, were only the disciples permitted to witness miracles 
of this kind, while the nation at large had no knowledge of 
them, or at least had no ocular evidence of their performance ? 



86 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

The reader will be instructed by pursuing this inquiry for 
himself. 

The following suggestions may aid him in the investigation, 
if they do not resolve the inquiry. "Son of Man," (Ben 
Adam) as a title of the Lord Jesus, denotes his Headship over 
the world of redemption, and his federal relations to the innu- 
merable hosts of his redeemed people. As Son of Man, he has 
a kingdom in which he will hereafter come, of which his 
transfiguration was a type or figure, Matt. xvi. 28 to xvii. 9 ; 
Mark ix. 1—10; Luke ix. 26—36; Matt. xxvi. 64. It is more 
comprehensive than his title of Messiah, which has respect 
especially to the throne of David, and his reign over the house 
of Jacob, Luke i. 32, 33. Both titles, indeed, concurred in his 
person, and the glory of both will be simultaneously manifested 
in the same great consummation; yet this specific appellation, 
if we may say so, is different, and the evidence of his claim to 
each was not only distinct and different, but exhibited to 
different witnesses. The nation was concerned to receive him 
as the Messiah — the promised son of David ; and to the nation 
he exhibited such notes or marks of his Messiahship, as the 
prophets foretold of him in that character. See Matt. xi. 4 — 6. 
His disciples, i. e. his apostles, were to be his heralds in a new 
dispensation, the consummation of which was to be the resti- 
tution of all things at his coming, as the second Adam, in his 
kingdom. It was to qualify them for this service, which was 
their real vocation, that they were taught by miracles, by 
parables, and in plain language, many things which the multi- 
tudes were not permitted to know, see Matt. xiii. 11 ; the 
meaning of which was mysterious at the time, but afterwards 
unfolded to them by the Holy Spirit. 

Such instruction as he thus privately gave them was emi- 
nently adapted to qualify them for their office, and inspire 
them with resolution to endure the sufferings to which it would 
subject them. Matt. xvi. 24 — 28 ; see Heb. xii. 2. 

In our Lord's last discourse with his apostles before he 
suffered, he assured them, with manifest allusion to these 
miracles of his (Adamic) power over physical nature, as well 
as to those he publicly performed, that all who believed in him 
should do greater works than any he had done before them, 
John xiv. 12. And why should he give them such a promise, 
except for their conviction and encouragement? To be gifted 
with such powers to be employed in his service, is in itself an 
inconceivably great and glorious reward. See Luke xix. 17, 
19. For wonderful as these miracles may seem to us, they 
were but faint and transient exercises of the power which, as 
Son of Man, he really possessed; and although quite sufficient 



MYSTERIES OF CHRIST'S NATURE. 87 

as proofs of the character he claimed, thej were far below the 
works which his redeemed people will be enabled to perform in 
his service, through . faith in him, in the world of redemption. 
In the plainest language he declared that nothing should be 
impossible unto them, Matt. xvii. 20 ; xxi. 20, 21 ; Luke xvii. 6. 
All such promises, however, had respect to the futurity of their 
being — to their glorified, and not to their fallen and imperfect 
state; for they enjoyed none of them during their earthly 
career. 1 Cor. xiii. 2. 

These considerations may suffice to show, in general, the use 
and intent of this miracle, and the character or relation in 
which our Lord performed it. We add a few observations on 
some of the particulars. 

Matt. viii. 23. "And when he was entered into a ship, his 
disciples followed him." Who these disciples were we are not 
informed. Probably they were few in number, and those, or 
among those, who were afterwards commissioned as apostles. 

Matt. viii. 24. "And behold there arose a great tempest 
in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves." 

The word (creccr/bioz) translated tempest, is frequently, if not 
usually employed to signify an earthquake. Matt. xxiv. 7, xxvii. 
54, xxviii. 2 ; Mark xiii. 8 ; Luke xxi. 11 ; Acts xvi. 26 ; Rev. 
vi. 12, viii. 5, xi. 13, 19, xvi. 18. The word was chosen, per- 
haps, to indicate the suddenness of the peril. The sea is about 
eighteen miles in length and five or six in breadth. It is sub- 
ject to whirlwinds and sudden gusts from the hollows of the 
mountains, of short duration but great violence. On this occa- 
sion, the gust was so violent that the vessel or boat (xolunzeadac) 
was hidden under the waves, and, as we may infer, would 
have been submerged, had not Jesus been on board. See John 
ix. 3. 

"But he was asleep," (sleeping.) 

We take these words in their literal import, as we would if 
they had been said of one of his disciples, xxvi. 43. In his 
fleshly nature, therefore, he was unconscious of the tempest. 
How could this be, seeing his human nature was united to the 
Divine ? We cannot tell. There was, however, an impenetra- 
ble mystery about his human person, distinct from the union of 
it with the Divine nature. This appears by what he said of 
himself to Nicodemus, John iii. 13, "No one hath ascended up 
to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son 
of Man which is in heaven;" by which we are to understand 
(1) that he had ascended to heaven, and (2) that ■ afterwards he 
had locally descended, and was at that time come down from 
heaven, and yet (3) that he was at that moment also in heaven, 
and all as the Son of Man. The distinction of natures does not 



88 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

help us here. As man, he ate and drank, Matt. xi. 19, and 
slept, as truly as the first man did. Gen. ii. 16, 21. He was at 
the same time on earth and in heaven, into which he had 
ascended, see Prov. xxx. 4; John vi. 62, and from which he 
had come down, and yet he was still there. He was the man of 
whom Adam in his unfallen state was only a type. Rom. v. 14. 

Matt. viii. 25. " And his disciples came to him and awoke 
him, saying, Lord save us: we perish," (we are lost.) 

They aroused him (-/jyecpau) out of sleep to consciousness, 
hoping that his extraordinary powers might, in some way, avail 
to their deliverance, though their ship or boat should be lost. 

Matt. viii. 26. "And he saith to them, Why are ye fearful, 

ye of little faith!" 

The narrative allows us to suppose that the Saviour uttered 
these words while yet in his recumbent posture, and while the 
danger appeared as imminent as ever. "Why fear ye these 
winds and these waves ?^know ye not, have I not told you, that 

1 am the Son of Man, to whom the Father hath given absolute 
dominion over all the works of his hands, ye of little faith?" 

Our Lord in his human nature was susceptible of sorrow, 
trouble, weariness, and other sinless human infirmities, Matt. 
xxvi. 37, 38, John iv. 6, xi. 33, 35, xiii. 21, but not of fear. 
Even before Pilate, when accused by infuriated priests, and 
when bearing his cross to Calvary, he felt no fear. As the 
Son of Man, all creatures and all the powers of nature were 
subject to him as his servants, while he was subject only to God 
the Father, 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 27, with whom, in his divine nature 
by sonship, he was one. John x. 30. Sorrow, suffering, pain, 
death, he assumed as inseparably incident to his redemptive 
work, but not fear. His confidence or faith, as man, in God 
was perfect. He was always heard, John xi. 42 ; and his hold 
(if we may so express it) upon Omnipotence, placed him, as a 
man, above all created natures and powers. See Matt. xxvi. 
53. If the disciples had exercised the same confidence or faith 
in him, they would have shared in his exemption from fear, as 
well as all causes of fear. John xiv. 1. But they did not, and 
hence the rebuke. We infer that the redeemed, being made 
perfect by faith, will, like their adorable Head, know no fear, 
Ps. xlvi. 2, 3; Rom. viii. 38, 39; and the only reason why such 
an exemption is not attainable in this life, is the imperfection of 
faith. See 1 John iv. 17, 18; Heb. ii. 15. 

" Then he arose and rebuked the winds and the sea, and 
there was a great calm." 

The power he put forth resided, as we suppose, in his human 
will, though it was derived from his Divine nature, to which it 
was mysteriously united. For there is no power or authority 



CHRIST'S POWER OVER NATURE. 89 

but of God. Rom. xiii. 1. So will it be with the elect people of 
Christ in their glorified state. The wonderful powers with 
which they will be invested, will truly reside in their wills, so 
far as powers can be supposed to belong to creatures ; yet they 
will be derived through their union to Christ from the infinite 
fulness of God in Christ. John xvi. 23; xiv. 12; Matt. xvii. 20; 
xxi. 21. 

The words of rebuke the Saviour addressed to the winds and 
the sea were interpretative of the act he performed, or intended 
merely as external evidence to the disciples of the power he 
exerted. In this light we are to regard his words to the leper, 
Matt. viii. 3, and whatever other external acts accompanied 
any of his miracles. See Matt. ix. 6. 

Matt. viii. 27. "But the men marvelled, saying, what man- 
ner of man is this, that even the winds and the seas obey him !" 

This exclamation may remind the reader of the words of 
David in 1 Chron. xvii. 17; 2 Sam. vii. 19. See Dr. Kennicott's 
and Bishop Horsley's remarks on these verses. The Lord 
Jesus, in his human nature, was a style of manhood of which 
they had no conception, although the Psalmist had in general 
terms described it. Ps. viii. Adam was invested with much 
larger powers than any of his descendants ever possessed, but 
the world was not then what it became afterwards, when by 
transgression he lost those powers. It would be mere specula- 
tion to inquire whether Adam could, in his state of innocency, 
control at his will the physical energies of material nature ; but 
from the dominion given him it is reasonable to infer that he 
had all the powers necessary to his condition as Lord of the 
world. Gen. i. 26. However this may be, such powers as the 
disciples had just witnessed, exerted by a man at his will, were 
essentially a new thing, at which they might well marvel, even 
if they had fully understood the import of the title " Son of 
Man." 

The word (pTraxooovacu) obey, we need not say, is properly 
predicable only of intelligent beings, but in the sense intended 
by the disciples it was neither poetical nor figurative. For the 
Lord had addressed the winds and the waves as conscious of his 
presence and will. The conception was new to them, and this 
word was suited (if not the only one they could employ) to 
express it. 

Matt. viii. 28 — 32. We regard the miracle related in these 
verses as belonging to the same class as the last. It was per- 
formed in the absence of the multitudes. The keepers of the 
swine, the Evangelist is careful to say, were (jioxpav) a good 
way off, verse 30, and the demoniacs were so fierce that no man 
could pass that way, verse 26. Jesus and his disciples, who just 



90 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

before had witnessed the stilling of the tempest, only were pre- 
sent. Yet miracles of this kind were often publicly performed 
by our Lord, and he imparted to his disciples afterwards the 
power publicly to perform them. Matt. x. 8; Mark vL 7; Luke 
ix. 1. Still it was an exercise of the Lord's power as Son of 
Man. The miracles, which appropriately belonged to his office 
as Messiah, are those enumerated in his answer to the inquiry 
of John: "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for 
another?" Matt. xi. 3. This form of inquiry plainly referred 
to the expected Messiah. The answer virtually referred John 
to what Moses and the prophets had written concerning the 
Messiah. As if he had said: Go tell John those things which 
ye do hear and see. The blind receive their sight and the 
lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead 
are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. 
By these things he may know whether I am he that should 
come (6 kp^o/jtew^) or whether this people should look for an- 
other. If such be the import of the answer we may infer 
that the miracles enumerated were those which properly be- 
longed to the office of Messiah, as foretold and described by the 
prophets. 

It may seem to the reader remarkable, that our Lord should 
answer John in this indirect way, and not by a simple affirma- 
tive. But a careful perusal of the Gospels will show that he 
did not publicly assume the title of Christ during his public 
ministry, Matt. xvi. 20; John x. 24, although he did very fre- 
quently the title " Son of Man."* The reason will be explained 
hereafter. But there is another argument or reason for assign- 
ing miracles of this kind to our Lord's Adamic office or charac- 

o 

ter, which may be thus stated: 

As Son of Man, he was the Man of whom the first Adam was 
but a type, Rom. v. 14 ; 1 Cor. xv. 45 — 47, and in this charac- 
ter or relation he was the Lord of this world. The conditional 
dominion given to the typical Adam was made sure and per- 
petual to him, and in this sense we are to understand the 
Psalm (viii.) already so often referred to. The power of Satan, 
who is often called the god or the prince of this world, John 
xii. 31, xiv. 30; Luke xxii. 53; Eph. ii. 2, vi. 12; see Matt, 
xii. 29, Luke x. 18, is therefore a usurpation of his rights AS 
Son of Man; and though as ancient as the first Adam, it 
exists only by his sufferance as the rightful Lord and Ruler. 
Bearing this in mind, we perceive that our Lord's incarnation, 

* This title occurs 32 times in Matthew, 14 times in Mark, 26 times in 
Luke, 11 times in John, and only 4 times in the other parts of the New Testa- 
ment, yiz. Acts yii. 56, Heb. ii. 6, and Rev. i. 13, xiv. 14. See Schmidt's Gr. 
Concordance. 



Christ's power over evil spirits. 91 

and assumption of this title, was the assumption of his rightful 
power as the Adam of promise or covenant, over all the power 
of the usurping enemy, Luke x. 19, to be exercised to a greater 
or less extent at that time, according to the Divine purposes. 
John xii. 31 — 33. Upon this fundamental idea the Lord an- 
swered the calumny of the Pharisees, when they ascribed his 
power over devils to the prince of the devils. Matt. xii. 24 — 29 ; 
Luke xi. 15 — 22. By the strong man armed, he denoted f the 
usurping power of Satan over this world, permitted in conse- 
quence of the fall of Adam. By the stronger man, whose 
energies needed not to be enforced by arms, he denoted him- 
self as the rightful Lord and Proprietor of the world, by Divine 
right in his character of Son of Man. Luke xi. 21, 22. 

This miracle, then, taken in connection with the one last 
mentioned, exemplifies the Saviour's power and authority, as 
Son of Man, in two distinct yet equally vast departments of his 
government^ viz. the physical or material world, and the world 
of spirits. The next miracle will furnish an example of his 
governmental power as Son of Man over the human race, Matt, 
ix. 2 — 6, thus making up the complement of evidence of his 
universal and absolute government over the world itself. The 
grouping or combining these miracles in such order* is an 
admirable illustration of the method of the Evangelist, and con- 
futes the notion of some, that the parts of this Gospel have been 
disarranged. 

We add an observation on Matt. viii. 29 : " And behold they 
cried out, saying; what have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou 
Son of God? Art thou come to torment us before the time?" 
(xoupou, the appointed time.) 

Mark and Luke add " Most High," and they represent the 
demons as adjuring Jesus not to torment them. It is evident 
they knew his person and his name, and their absolute subjec- 
tion to his power. Yet it cannot be inferred from their words, 
if interpreted according to the idiom of the language, that they 
understood his personality in the Godhead. Adam was a son 
of God, and Luke so calls him, Luke iii. 38, comp. with verse 23. 
Dominion, glory, and bliss had been given him. In the pos- 
session of these he resembled God, and in this sense, as well as 
that of creation, he might be called a son of God. From the 
expression, " Art thou come to torment us before the time?" 
we infer that they took him to be that mysterious man, or seed 
promised at the fall, by whose power they had understood from 

* It is important to notice that the Evangelist introduces this miracle in this 
place by anticipation — departing from the order of time; and for no other 
reason that we can perceive, than argumentative effect, as above suggested. 
But this was a sufficient motive. See Mark v. 1 — 13: Luke viii. 26 — 34. 



92 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

the beginning, the dominion of Satan, their leader and prince, 
was at some time to be crushed. It was before the time ap- 
pointed for this purpose, as the event has shown : for the world 
is still subject, in some measure at least, to Satan's power. 
Rom. xvi. 20; 1 Pet. v. 8. But how they knew, or whether 
they knew the precise time or season of the event they so 
earnestly deprecated, is a question about which we need not 
inquire. See Mark xiii. 32. They can no more penetrate the 
secrets of the Divine mind, than the most ignorant of God's 
creatures. Yet they may be permitted to know what men may 
not, and cannot know in this life ; and God may withhold from 
Satan and his hosts the knowledge of things which he makes 
known to holy angels, or even to men. The word "deep" 
(aftooaov,) employed by Luke, shows what their fear was. It is 
the same word which is translated "bottomless pit" in Rev. xx. 
1, 3; ix. 1,2, 11; xi. 7; xvii. 8. 



CHAPTER III. 

The power of faith. — The call of Matthew. — The harvest field. — Powers con- 
ferred on the Apostles. — Sending forth the Twelve. — Necessity of distinguish- 
ing between the person, offices, or authority of Jesus. — First conspiracy 
against the life of Jesus. — Chief intent of John's inquiry of Jesus by his 
disciples, "Art thou he that should come?" &c. — Contrast between sins against 
the Holy Spirit and sins against the Son of Man. — A prophetic allegory 
especially applicable to the Jews, shadowing forth their future character and 
moral condition. — Division of parables into public and private instruction. — 
Importance of the distinction between our Lord's public functions as a minis- 
ter of the circumcision, and his private functions as a teacher of disciples. — 
Christ's private instructions to his disciples contain the germ of all the 
great doctrines of the Epistles. — An allegorical representation of the state of 
the world between the first and second advent of the Son of Man. — A simili- 
tude of the teachers the Lord designed to raise up and instruct in the myste- 
ries of the kingdom of heaven. 

Matthew ix. 2. "And behold they brought to him a man sick 
of the palsy, lying on a bed ; and Jesus, seeing their faith, saith 
unto the sick of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be 
forgiven thee." 

We have here another example of the power of faith. The 
sins of the sick man were forgiven on account of the faith of 
the sympathizing friends who brought him. It was not his 
faith, but theirs, which is alleged as the ground of the miracle. 
The forgiveness of his sins involved, as we may infer, the cure 
of his infirmity. Whether the cure was effected simultaneously 
with the uttering of these words, is not expressly affirmed. 
We suppose so : yet the evidence of it was not immediately 
apparent, and this gave occasion, verse 3, "to certain of the 



Christ's power to forgive sins. 93 

Scribes" who were present to say "within themselves, This 
man blasphemeth." "Who can forgive sins but God only?" 
Mark ii. 7; Luke v. 21 ; vii. 49. 

Heinous as the offence of blasphemy was, by the Jewish law, 
and in their own apprehension, the sublimity of our Lord's 
character and deportment repressed the audible utterance of 
the accusation; and this gave occasion for the exhibition of 
another superhuman attribute, which our Lord always exer- 
cised and often manifested to others. John ii. 24, 25 ; vi. 64 ; 
xvi. 30; Mark ii. 8; Acts i. 24; Rev. ii. 23; see 1 Sam. xvi. 
7; 1 Chron. xxviii. 9. 

Matt. ix. 4. "And Jesus knowing their thoughts said: 
Wherefore think ye evil (of me) in your hearts? For is it 
easier to say, Thy sins are forgiven thee, or to say, Arise and 
walk?" 

By this question, the Saviour assumed, that to him it was 
indifferent what words he used, or whether he used any. They 
were not the means by which he accomplished his purposes, 
but only the external evidence of them. Hence, he added, 
verse 6 : " But, that ye may know that the Son of man hath 
power (iiptavae ixe vq<; yrfi djuapTtaz, Mark ii. 10) to forgive 
sins on earth," I said these words — that is, he used them for 
their sakes merely ; that they might know what he intended 
to prove by the miracle, namely, his power and authority as 
Son of Man to forgive the sins of men. 

The prerogative, which the Saviour here claims as the Son 
of Man, rightly considered, involves the absolute government 
of men in all their relations. Sins are offences against the law 
of God, which is paramount to all other laws, and the remis- 
sion of sins includes the remission of all the penalties due to 
them. See Gen. ii. 17; John xi. 26; Matt. xi. 28. On 
another occasion, Matt. xii. 8, he claimed authority over the 
Sabbath day, the earliest and most sacred of the divine ordi- 
nances. But what is particularly to be noticed, he annexes 
these prerogatives to his human, not to his Divine nature; 
a distinction which, if observed, is not sufficiently considered. 
In his Divine nature as the Eternal Word he is the Creator 
and Governor of all worlds, but as Son of Man he is the abso- 
lute Lord and proprietor of this world; and in this character, 
he claims the allegiance of the human race, of angels good and 
bad. Heb. i. 6. The world to come, or the earth in all its 
futurity, physical nature, irrational creatures, in short, the 
world and all its apparatus of powers, of rational and irrational, 
animate and inanimate, corporeal and incorporeal, material 
and spiritual natures, and whatever else there may be of things 



94 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

terrestrial — all are made subject to him as the Son of Man* by 
the Father, with whom, in his Divine nature, he is one. Matt, 
xi. 27 ; Ps. viii. 6. 

In perfect harmony with (or rather, perhaps, we should say, 
as a future demonstration of) these attributes, he declared, that 
as Son of Man he would come in his kingdom, in the glory of 
the Father with his angels, and sit upon the throne of his 
glory, and gather all nations before him, and reward every 
man according to his works. Matt. xiii. 41 ; xvi. 27 ; xix. 28. 
See also Matt. xxiv. 27; Mark xiii. 26; Luke xxi. 27; John 
i. 51 ; Matt. xvi. 27. And, as if to remove the possibility of 
mistake, or misapprehension, he declared that these majestic 
powers of judgment and government were committed to him 
by the Father because he is the Son of Man, John v. 27 — that 
is, the Adam of the Covenant, by force whereof these powers 
were vested in him, Ps. viii. 6 — 9; Gen. i. 26, from the be- 
ginning. 

It is commonly supposed that this title or designation of 
our blessed Lord, was assumed chiefly, if not merely, to set 
forth the reality of his human nature and its identity with the 
nature of other men, Heb. ii. 14 ; iv. 15, and there can be no 
doubt it does unequivocally teach us that, truth. Indeed, he 
identifies himself with our manhood in his reply to the first 
temptation of the tempter, Matt. iv. 4 : "It is written, man shall 
not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth 
out of the mouth of Grod." There would be no appositeness 
in this reply, had he not been truly a man made under the 
law, Gal. iv. 4. and ( bound by its requirements. But in assum- 
ing it, our Lord had especial reference (as has been suggested, 
see note on Matt. viii. 23, 27,) to the eighth Psalm, where 
"the manner of the man," especially the exalted and holy 
nature of his humanity, and the Divine attributes of power 
and government with which it is invested, are briefly portrayed. 
What David's conceptions were of the man he had there 
described by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, may be con- 

* But we must distinguish between the power possessed (nrna-tv) and the 
full exercise of it (^^-/v.) The power our Lord possessed as Son of Man he 
did not exercise, except occasionally and in small measures, in proof or de- 
monstration of his attributes, while in his state of humiliation; although he 
frequently asserted his possession of it. In pursuance of the Divine plan, he 
had so far divested himself of it, in respect to the enjoyment of worldly pos- 
sessions, that he had not where to lay his head. Matt, viii, 20. See John 
xix. 36. After his ascension and glorification, he began to put forth his 
power, and he will continue to exercise it, until all things shall be restored 
and brought into subjection to him, while he himself is subject only to God. 
Heb. ii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 24 — 27. The purchase of the Holy Spirit by whose 
energies he will subdue all things to himself was made by the offering of his 
body, as Son of Man. Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 45. See 1 Tim. ii. 6. 



CHRIST AS THE SON OF MAN. 95 

jectured from his address to God, after lie had heard the 
message delivered to him by Nathan, see 2 Sam. vii. 18 — 29; 
1 Chron. xvii. 16 — 27, and it is apposite in this place briefly 
to consider them. 

Dr. Kennicott remarks of this address, that it is "just such 
as one might naturally expect from a person, over-whelmed with 
the greatness of the promised blessing; it is abrupt, full of 
wonder, and fraught with repetitions." The words in 2 Sam. 
vii. 19, rendered, "And is this the manner of the Man, Lord 
God," are not, according to the same learned author, suf- 
ficiently, or even accurately translated. Their meaning, as he 
expresses it, is: "And this is (or must be) the law of the man 
or of the Adam;" — that is, this promise must relate to the law 
or the ordinance made by God to Adam concerning the seed of 
the woman — the Man or the Second Adam, as the Messiah is 
expressly called by St. Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 45 — 47. See Rom. 
v. 14. 

Bishop Horsley adopts the leading idea of Dr. Kennicott, 
but departs a little from his translation. He renders the 
passage thus: "And this is the arrangement about the Man, 

Lord Jehovah!" The words, he says, are exactly parallel 
with 1 Chron. xvii. 17, which he translates thus: "And thou 
hast regarded me in the arrangement about the MAN that is to 
be from above, Lord Jehovah."* — that is, in forming the 

* Sebastian Schmidt translates the words, 1 Chronicles xvii. 17, ^fi^J* 1 ") 1 ! 
nb^teil Elfctfl li2n3 " e ^ respexisti me juxta rationem hominis illius celsissimi," 

-which is defective in this, that it does not give the full sense of ;-j^3)fari which, 
according to Dr. Kennicott, very remarkably signifies hereafter as to time, and 
from above as to place; both of which senses are combined by St. Paul in 

1 Cor. xv. 47. 

Ernst Berth eau, Professor at Gottingen, not perceiving the allusion to the 
Second Adam, and finding a difficulty in extracting any intelligible meaning 
from the Hebrew text as it stands, proposes to change ^tr^Ti Kal into 
k1 2in k " l &'~im Hiphil, and render the words thus: "And thou hast caused me, as 
it were, to see the succession of men from this time upwards" — mother words: 
"The line of men which stretched onward from David in an unbroken series 
into the remote future, appears as an ascending line rising upward to an 
immeasurable distance." This author admits, that if the present reading is 
retained, ^j-j (tor) must be understood in the sense of rmtV (torat) which, 
according to Bishop Horsley, may well be without rejecting the word j-r^JJafl 
as superfluous, although Professor Bertheau thinks it must be, as a necessary 
consequence of such an interpretation. As to the expedient of changing Kal 
into Hiphil, without the authority of a MS. (see Dr. Kennicott's Ed. of the 
Hebrew Bible) it is, to say the least, a very bold one and entirely unnecessary; 
as the notes of Dr. Kennicott and Bishop Horsley above quoted, abundantly 
prove. S. Cahen admits that the passage is difficult. He renders it, following 
De Wette, " Tu m'as regarde d'une maniere humaine, toi qui es eleve, 
Jehova Dieu." He cites Kimchi, who finds in the words this meaning : " Thou 
hast regarded me, as if I were a man of elevated rank, whereas I am a pitiful 



96 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

scheme of incarnation, regard was had to the honour of David 
and his family as a secondary object, by making it a part of 
the plan that the Messiah should be born in his family." See 
Barrett's Synopsis of Criticisms. Vol. ii. Part ii. pp. 545, 
546. 

If we carefully consider and compare this address of David, 
with the Psalm, which it is probable he had previously com- 
posed, we shall perceive that the purpose of redeeming the 
world and such a race as mankind are, by such an expedient as 
the incarnation, was a matter of inexpressible wonder to him ;* 
but his wonder passes into amazement when he is informed that 
this Son of Man, the Second Adam, the heir and the Lord of 
the world, should condescend to become the heir of his throne. 

If John the Baptist had equally just conceptions of the Lord 
Jesus, as the Son of Man, (and who can doubt it? John i. 15,) 
no wonder that he recoiled from the service of baptizing him 
with water, Matt. iii. 14 ; but the tempter surely had not, or he 
could not have thought of alluring him by the gift of what was 

being." The Septuagint and the Syriac translators followed, as this author 
supposes, a different reading. 

The truth is, the difficulty lies less in the language than in conceiving the 
Divine purpose which it expresses. It belongs to the mysteries of the king- 
dom, which mere learning and sagacity, however acute, can never discover. 
Matt. xiii. 11. As to the signification of "-^fi, see Venema Hist. Eccl. vol. i. 
p. 488. Calasio's Concord, ad voc. *y\z\. It is an argument in favour of the 
received text, that it is the more difficult, inasmuch as the difficulty lies 
chiefly in our inability to grasp the sublime idea the words are intended to 
convey. 

* Anticipating the restitution of all things under the Son of Man, and in 
prophetic vision seeing it accomplished, the Psalmist exclaims with holy admi- 
ration and awe, " Jehovah (Adonenu) our Lord, how excellent (great, illus- 
trious,) is thy name in all the earth ! '' Reverting then to its fallen and disordered 
condition, he summarily sets forth the redemptive work of Christ by which 
this great change was wrought: and Satan and his hosts, the mighty enemies, 
which had so long held it in subjection, overcome and expelled (stilled). This 
wonderful work was accomplished by strength constructed and raised up out 
of the weakness of babes and sucklings. The next thought that strikes him, is 
the wonderful condescension of God, whose power is so mighty, whose wisdom 
so incomprehensible, whose works are so vast : — that he should be mindful 
and care for, poor, miserable, mortal man, and especially that he should visit 
such creatures in the way of an alliance with them in their nature, and for 
ever so little a time submit to be lower (in that nature) than his angels, and 
not only to suffer want, but to have his wants supplied by his own creatures. 
Matt. iv. 11; Luke xxii. 43. — The condescension is so great that he has no 
words to express his conception of it. He therefore passes immediately to 
the exaltation of the (ben Adam) Son of Man, thus taken into union with the 
Divine nature, and exultingly adds: "Thou hast crowned him with glory and 
honour (the honour of the Father;) Thou hast invested him with (absolute) 
dominion over these (terrestrial) works of thy hands; Thou hast put all things 
(pertaining to the earth ; all its natures, powers, and creatures in absolute 
subjection to him) under his feet," &c. The Psalmist can say no more; and 
for want of other words, ends this inspired effusion as he began it: "0 
Jehovah, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in, all the earth!" 



THE CALL OF MATTHEW. 97 

already his own. Matt. iv. 8, 9; Luke iv. 5 — 7, and Bengel on 
Matt. xvi. 13. 

Matt. ix. 9. "And as Jesus passed forth from thence, he 
saw a man named Matthew sitting at the receipt of custom, and 
he saith unto him : Follow me. And he arose and followed 
him." 

It is worthy of being remarked, that the call of the Saviour 
was always effective. We have no instance in which the least 
delay or hesitation was manifested. Like the winds and the 
waves, diseases and unclean spirits, they yielded instantly to 
the power of his word, thus recognizing in the most impressive 
manner his authority to command them. Matthew, otherwise 
called Levi the son of Alpheus, Mark ii. 14 ; Luke v. 27, was, 
at the moment of his call, actually engaged in the performance 
of his public duties. Luke adds, "he left all." Simon and 
Andrew, James and John, were called under similar circum- 
stances, Matt. iv. 18, 22; see John i. 35 — 51. We have no 
particular account of the calling of Thomas, of James the son 
of Alpheus, of Lebbeus, surnamed Thaddeus, of Simon the 
Canaanite, \_£'q?,coTrj<;, Luke vi. 15; Acts i. 13, the zealous or 
the zealot], nor of Judas Iscariot ; yet as they were the appointed 
instruments of the Saviour's work, we have no reason to sup- 
pose that they did not yield instantly and implicitly to the 
power of his word. See Matt. xix. 27. 

Matthew, it is probable, was the only one of the twelve apos- 
tles who was called from a thriving worldly condition. His 
employment was lucrative, and honourable among the Romans, 
but highly disreputable among the Jews. Luke v. 29, 30. The 
account which he gives of himself is characterized by great 
modesty and even humility ; an evidence that neither his employ- 
ment nor worldlv wealth had corrupted his heart. See Luke 
xix. 1—10; iii. 12,13. 

Matt. ix. 18 — 31. The miracles recorded in these verses, 
are further examples of the power of faith; see note on Matt, 
viii. 2, 3, and with that view of them, it is suggested, they were 
introduced by the Evangelist in this place. The Saviour had 
before this time restored to life the widow's son at Nain, Luke 
vii. 11 — 13; but that miracle, though a wonderful proof of the 
Saviour's power and compassion, was not an illustration of the 
power of faith. The Evangelists, in composing their Gospels, 
selected from the abundant materials they had at hand, such as 
were best suited to some particular point or purpose they had 
in view. Thus John records the miracle of raising Lazarus 
from the dead for the purpose of showing, among other things, 
the reason why the rulers of the nation precipitated their mea- 
sures for the destruction of the Lord Jesus. John xi. 46 — 51. 
13 



98 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Luke's object in recording the raising of the widow's son at 
Nain, was to illustrate the great compassion of our Lord as 
well as his power; while Matthew, in the passage under con- 
sideration, further illustrates and enforces, by various instances, 
the power of faith. See Luke viii. 50 ; Mark v. 36. 

The miracles mentioned in these verses suggest many instruc- 
tive thoughts, and we may return to them hereafter. They have 
been thus briefly alluded to in this place for the purpose of 
pointing out to the reader, the plan, in one particular, upon 
which this Gospel was composed, and vindicating it from the 
suspicion that its contents have been disarranged. 

Matt. ix. 35. "And Jesus went about all the cities and 
villages, teaching in their synagogues and preaching the gospel 
of the kingdom and healing every sickness and every disease 
among the people." 

This tour, which must have occupied a considerable time, in 
which many discourses must have been delivered, and a great 
many miracles performed, is described in the most general 
terms. A particular narrative of it, we may easily believe, 
would have filled more pages than the whole Gospel as we have 
it. The brevity is characteristic, and proves that this Gospel 
was not intended as a biography of our Lord, or as a journal 
or connected record of his public ministry, but rather as excerpts 
or selections from large materials. See note on John xx. 19. 
The Evangelist's motive for alluding to this tour is suggested 
by the next verse. 

Matt. ix. 36. "But when he saw the multitudes, he was 
moved with compassion on them, because they fainted, and 
were scattered abroad as sheep having no shepherd." 

The Lord was attended on this tour by his disciples. It dis- 
closed to them the condition of the people, although they were 
not sensible of their extreme destitution. He called their 
attention to it, as a subject in which they ought to feel a deep 
concern, and employ the means best suited to remove it. 

Matt. ix. 37, 38. " Then saith he unto his disciples, the 
harvest," as you see, "truly is plenteous, but the labourers few: 
pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he will (would) 
send labourers into his harvest." 

A congeries of sublime ideas, if interpreted, as the verse 
should be, according to the parable of the tares of the field, 
Matt. xiii. 24, 38, 39, 41. The harvest-field. is the world; the 
harvest the countless myriads of the human race; the time of 
the harvest is the end of the world, and the Lord of the harvest 
is the Son of Man. The idea contained in the word (depiafjio^) 
harvest, includes the whole work of preparation for it — all the 
means which enter into the Divine plan for producing the grand 



THE HARVEST FIELD. 99 

result — the sowing of the seed, the culture of the plants, and 
finally the gathering of the products. The Saviour, on a later 
occasion, John xii. 24, represented even his own body under 
the emblem of a corn of wheat, which must fall into the ground 
and die, in order that it might be quickened into fructifying 
life. 

Portions of this vast field were to be occupied in succession 
by successive labourers. The first portion in order, was that 
upon which the Saviour himself had entered. It was a little angle 
in the vast demesnes of the Lord of the harvest. The multi- 
tudes, among whom he moved, which excited his compassion, 
were comparatively but a handful. On an earlier occasion, he 
applied a similar remark to the Samaritans, John iv. 35, show- 
ing, that his views embraced other interests than those of Israel. 
See John x. 16. 

We understand these words, then, in the large sense in which 
the Saviour interpreted the parable of the tares of the field. 
Matt. xiii. 37 — 43. They embrace all nations, and all times, 
till the Son of Man, the Lord of the harvest, shall come. But 
what we desire particularly to notice, is the majesty of the 
character of the Lord of the harvest. He is the Lord of the 
field, and the field is the world. He is the absolute proprietor 
of whatever may be gathered from it. He calls it his harvest. 
He superintends the whole work, and sends forth whom he will 
to perform it. 

The word (ixflaAyj) translated send forth, implies a compelling 
force. The same word is translated, in Mark i. 12, driveth. 
The connection shows that force from the hand of the Lord of 
the harvest is intended. This interpretation suggests that the 
Saviour had respect especially to the day of Pentecost, when 
the apostles entered upon their labours under the inspiration 
and impulse of the Holy Spirit, and preached the word as they 
were moved by him. It may be added, that the word (kpjarrj<;) 
labourer, is used by the apostle Paul to denote a prophetic or 
inspired minister. This interpretation agrees with the fact: 
For the Lord Jesus, as Lord of the harvest, sent the Holy 
Spirit upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost, and thus 
qualified them as labourers for him, John xvi. 7 ; Acts ii. 33, 
and constrained them to enter zealously on their work, 1 Cor. 
ix. 16. 

In a subordinate sense, however, the mission of the Twelve 
apostles to the cities of Israel, recorded in the tenth chapter, 
and the mission of the Seventy disciples soon after, Luke x., 
may be regarded as the sending forth of labourers into the 
harvest. It was a field of labour, though not of success. 

Matt. x. 1. "And when he had called unto him his twelve 



100 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

disciples he gave them power over unclean spirits to cast them 
out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of 
disease." 

Mark hi. 13, 14, and Luke vi. 12, 13, relate the call and 
ordination of the twelve apostles, which Matthew omits. These 
acts belonged to the Lord's function or office of preacher of 
the kingdom; the design of them being to spread more widely 
the proclamation of the kingdom, which John the Baptist first 
began to preach. The conferring of such powers upon the 
apostles, preparatory to their mission, for the confirmation of 
it, was itself a miracle of the highest order, which for reasons 
already suggested, see notes on Matt. viii. 28 — 32; ix. 2, we 
assign to his Adamic character or relations. The power con- 
ferred was limited to two kinds of miracles, see note Matt. iv. 
23, 24, healing diseases and casting out unclean spirits or 
devils;* and even in respect to these, it is not necessary to sup- 
pose he gave them power equal to his own. See Matt. viii. 29, 
note, and xvii. 16. 

The gift appears to have been annexed to their office as 
preachers of the kingdom, and in the case of Judas, if not of 
the others, to have been bestowed irrespectively of personal 
holiness. They were not required to impose the condition of 
faith upon those who sought relief at their hands, nor are we 
told that they did so. Mark vi. 13 ; Luke ix. 6. How they 
exercised their power we are not particularly informed. Mark, 
vi. 13, says they cast out many devils, and anointed with oil 
many that were sick, and healed them. Luke says, ix. 6, they 
went through the towns preaching the gospel and healing 
everywhere. It is probable they cast out devils in the name of 
Jesus. Luke x. 17; see Mark ix. 39; Matt. vii. 22. This was 
necessary in order to connect him with the kingdom which they 
preached ; and it is probable our Lord refers in his question to 
the Pharisees, to the invocation of his name by his disciples 
over the demoniacs they relieved. Matt. xii. 27 ; see Acts xix. 
13 — 15. The power of his name produced these wonderful 
effects, while they were unconscious of any power transmitted 
to, or proceeding from them. 

It is worthy of observation that not a miracle they performed 
during our Lord's personal ministry is circumstantially recorded, 

* By the 8th verse it would seem, power was also given them to raise the 
dead. But these words (vatpovc \yu^wi) raise the dead are not contained in some 
ancient MSS., and are thought by some commentators to be an addition to the 
genuine text (see Mill and Beza.) Only three miracles of restoring the dead 
to life were wrought by the Saviour himself, viz. the raising of the widow's 
son, Luke vii. 11 — 16, of Jairus' daughter, Matt. ix. ; Mark v. ; Luke viii., 
and of Lazarus, John xi. ; at least, none others are recorded. 



COMMISSION OF THE APOSTLES AND CARE OVER THEM. 101 

nor a sermon or an address which they made to the people. We 
are not told that they were followed by multitudes, nor that 
they were sought for by individuals for healing, except in one 
case in which they were unable to effect a cure, Matt. xvii. 16, 
and this was after their return from their mission — an impor- 
tant fact, which will hereafter be particularly noticed. It may 
be added, the discourse contained in this chapter, x., belongs 
to the category of private instruction, see note on Matt. iv. 17. 

Matt. x. 5 — 7. " Gro not into the way of the Gentiles, and 
into a city of the Samaritans enter ye not. But go rather to 
the lost sheep of the house of Israel; and as ye go preach, 
saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand." 

Such was their commission. It was restricted to the procla- 
mation of the kingdom (come nigh) to the lost sheep of the 
house of Israel. The restriction was removed after our Lord's 
resurrection. Matt, xxviii. 19. Thenceforward they were to 
teach all nations. The difference is so remarkable that some 
have regarded the last as a new and distinct commission, but it 
seems proper to regard it rather as the same commission, with 
enlarged powers, and a wider scope. 

We observe, they were not commissioned to preach repentance, 
as John the Baptist did. Matt. iii. 2. They were sent out to 
proclaim a single fact, and prove the proclamation by miracles. 
We have no reason to suppose that even Judas, the traitor, did 
not share equally with the others in the commission, the due 
execution of which did not require the gift of inspiration. Yet, 
according to Mark, vi. 12, they did preach that men should 
repent, which they would naturally and might properly do, in 
imitation of John the Baptist and the Saviour. The point of 
the observation is, that they were not authorized expounders of 
the law, nor were they at that time capable of exercising that 
function, which proves their inferiority to John the Baptist, in 
spiritual gifts. See Matt, xxiii. 2, 3, and note on iii. 1, 2. 

Matt. x. 9, 10. "Provide neither gold nor silver, nor brass 
in your purses, nor scrip for your journey; neither two coats, 
neither shoes nor yet staves." 

The Saviour, during his personal ministry, exercised a spe- 
cial care over the apostles. It was not until his public ministry 
was ended, and he was about to surrender himself to his ene- 
mies, that he revoked the order contained in these verses. 
Luke xxii. 35, 36. In this sense, as well as in that of spiritual 
guardianship, we understand John xvii. 12, " While I was with 
them in the world, I kept them in thy name."- Even at the 
moment of their greatest peril, he exercised his power signally 
for their protection. "If ye seek me, let these go their way." 
These were words of power, spoken "that the saying might be 



102 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

fulfilled; of them thou gavest me have I lost none." John xviii. 
8, 9. We observe, again, that the Saviour's providence ex- 
tended to the smallest and most necessary things. This 
appears, by. the particulars, enumerated in these verses, and 
yet more clearly by his assurance, verse 30, "that the very 
hairs of their heads were all numbered." 

Accordingly, the Gospels contain no account of any injuries 
done to them. Their lives, their health were spared. We read 
of no sickness, or hurtful accident, or persecution happening to 
any of them. Peter was safe, notwithstanding his fears and 
want of faith, when sinking in the midst of the sea. Matt. xiv. 
24, 30. The power, if not the hand of Jesus, the King of the 
kingdom the apostles were sent forth to preach, was ever pre- 
sent, to ward off the most threatening dangers. The shepherd 
must be smitten before the sheep could be harmed or scattered. 
Matt. xxvi. 31; Mark xiv. 27; Zech. xiii. 7. 

Matt. x. 12, 13. " And when ye come into an house, salute 
it, and if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it." 

Some ancient MSS. add to the 12th verse a form of saluta- 
tion, (XeyovTeG, elprjvq iv rco ohco toutco,) "Saying: Peace be 
in this house." Beza. This formula accords well with the 
Jewish custom; but the emphasis of the precept lies on the 
word your — Let your peace come upon it. The peace of the 
apostles, as we have just seen, verses 9 and 10, consisted in the 
covenanted care and providence of the Saviour. It was an 
assured and special protection against all enemies, and all 
harm. No Jew or Jewish household besides had any share in 
it. Hence, the Saviour added, " If it be not worthy, let your 
peace return to you," that is, let that house be like others 
which have no part in the protection I have especially promised 
to you, and to those who shall receive you. 

Matt. x. 14. "And whosoever shall not receive you, nor 
hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake 
off the dust of your feet." 

In order to understand some of the directions contained in 
this chapter, we must bear in mind that our Lord's ministry to 
the Jews was a national visitation under the legal economy, 
and that his sending of the twelve apostles to the cities of 
Israel, or to the lost sheep of the House of Israel, verses 6, 23, 
accorded in its purposes with his own. Hence cities were held 
responsible as communities. The preaching of John the Bap- 
tist was addressed not simply to individuals, but to the nation 
as such. The baptism he administered was appointed for the 
nation, as the elect people, see note on Matt. iii. 11, as well as 
for the individuals composing it. So our Lord preached the 
kingdom to the nation; and John the Evangelist, xii. 37 — 41, 



NATIONAL JUDGMENTS. 103 

recording the rejection of him, quoted the prophecy of Isaiah, 
liii. 1; vi. 1, 9, 10, as fulfilled by the national unbelief. There 
were some who believed, yet for the national sin of rejecting 
the kingdom, a national judgment was inflicted, in which all 
were involved, while those who did not consent to the nation's 
sin, received power to become the sons of God, John i. 12, and 
be manifested as such, when the kingdom shall be brought nigh 
again, and the Son of Man shall appear the second time. 

Matt. x. 15. "Verily, I say unto you, it shall be more 
tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of 
judgment than for that city." 

This verse confirms the view taken of the last. The Lord 
pronounces this doom against the cities who would not receive 
his messengers, nor hear their words ^communities; and he 
likens it to the judgments which were so inflicted upon those 
cities of the plain of Jordan. They suffered as social and 
political organizations, and so did the Jewish nation, in con- 
sequence of their rejection of Christ and the kingdom he 
preached. Under the present dispensation the gospel is 
preached to men as individuals. It was appointed to take out 
of all nations, and the cities and smaller communities com- 
posing them, an elect people, Acts xv. 14; Matt, xxviii. 19; 
and the apostles, after the ascension of Christ, were not 
authorized to enforce their preaching, in any of the places to 
which they were sent, by the denunciation of national judg- 
ments. The distinction is important, as it results from the 
essential difference between the economy of law established 
over Israel as a nation, and the economy of grace which is 
extended to all nations — between the gospel as preached to 
the Jews under the economy of law, and the gospel of grace 
preached to all nations. 

Matt. x. 18. "And ye shall be brought before governors 
and kings, for my sake, for a testimony against them and the 
Gentiles." 

The apostles received only one commission from the Saviour, 
but under it they received two missions. See note on verses 
5 — 7. The first was restricted to the cities of Israel, and it 
fell within the period of our Lord's personal ministry, verse 6. 
The second was to all nations, Matt, xxviii. 19 ; to the utter- 
most part of the earth, Acts i. 8 ; to every creature, Mark xvi. 
15. At the time of their first mission, they had no idea of a 
second, so different in point of extent from the first. They 
had no conception of the new dispensation about to be estab- 
lished, nor of the events which were to precede and introduce 
it. Nor was it our Lord's purpose to instruct them at that 
time, on these subjects. Previously to this time, he had not 



104 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

even spoken of his rejection by the nation, nor of his death 
and resurrection. Had any of these particulars been mentioned, 
or plainly alluded to, they would not have understood what he 
intended, Luke xix. 31—34; Matt. xvi. 21, 23; xvii. 9. But 
as the whole of the approaching dispensation was vividly present 
to his mind, as well as the events which were to introduce it, 
our Lord expressed himself in general terms, some of which 
were exclusively applicable to their first, others to their second 
mission, and some to both, which they would afterwards be 
taught to apply, according to his meaning, by the Holy Spirit. 
The passage under consideration seems to have respect prima- 
rily, if not exclusively, to their second mission. The Gentiles 
and their governors and kings are expressly mentioned, among 
whom the apostles at first were forbidden to go. In the pre- 
ceding verse, 17th, councils and synagogues are mentioned, and 
that verse forewarns them of the treatment they should receive 
from the Jewish people. Yet it does not appear that even that 
prediction was fulfilled during our Lord's personal ministry, 
although it was, in the case of some of them, soon after his 
resurrection. Acts iv. 3 — 7. And when he commands them 
not to meditate how or what they shall speak, verses 19, 20, 
assuring them, at the same time, that it shall be given them 
what they shall speak ; so that it shall not be they who speak, 
but the Spirit of the Father, he plainly refers to the inspiration 
they should receive on the day of Pentecost, and consequently 
to the time of their second mission. The apostles, however, 
would very naturally apply all that he then said, to the service 
upon which they were about to enter, as they were ignorant of 
the extent to which their service would ultimately be required. 
But the instruction was sufficient for both, and the events which 
the Saviour foresaw would attend their . service, would, under 
the teaching of the Holy Spirit, show them its application. 

It is worthy of being noticed that our Lord, on this occasion, 
first promised the apostles the indwelling of the Holy Spirit to 
guide and instruct them, though it was only by implication. 
verse 20. Afterwards, when about to leave them, he repeated 
the promise in the most explicit terms. John xvi. 7, 13, 14 ; 
xv. 26; xiv. 16, 26; Luke xxiv. 49. 

Matt. x. 23: " But when they persecute you in this city, flee 
ye to another ; for verily I say unto you, ye shall not have gone 
over the cities of Israel till the Son of Man be come." 

This precept is very plain, but the reason by which it is 
enforced, has been the subject of much discussion. We may 
paraphrase the verse thus : " When you are persecuted, (as you 
will be) in one city, (stay not to endure it, but) flee from it to 
another, and if persecuted there also, flee to a third, and so on ; 



COMING OF THE SON OF MAN. 105 

for proceeding thus from city to city, you will not have gone 
over all the cities of Israel until the Son of Man (lAOvf) may 
come and supersede your service." The difficulty is to deter- 
mine what we are to understand by the coming of the Son of 
Man, (kcoz du ildrj 6 uIoq too dydpconoo.) If we understand 
these words of his coming to put an end to the dispensation for 
which he had commissioned them, and to establish his kingdom 
in outward glory over the whole earth; the meaning is that the 
apostles might never fully accomplish the service for which he 
had commissioned them, even if they should live to the end of 
time. Lightfoot understands the expression to mean ',< till the 
Son of Man rise from the dead." To this interpretation 
Whitby objects, for several reasons, but chiefly because in their 
first mission (from which they presently returned,) they met 
with no persecution, and because the phrase " the coming of 
the Son of Man," never signifies our Lord's coming at his 
resurrection, but only his coming to destroy the Jewish nation, 
or to the final judgment. Hence he adds that "seeing the 
apostles were none of them to live till the day of judgment, it 
seems necessary to understand this of his coming to avenge his 
quarrel on the Jewish nation." Dr. Whitby's objections to 
Lightfoot's interpretation seem to be unanswerable. The ob- 
jections to Dr. Whitby's interpretation are, that the sense he 
puts upon these words is not supported by the texts which he 
cites, viz. Matt. xxiv. 27, 30, 37, 44; xxv. 13; Mark xiii. 26; 
Luke xviii. 8 ; xxi. 27 ; all of which refer to our Lord's coming 
to the final judgment. His interpretation is equivalent to the 
sense just before expressed, that the apostles might never be 
able to accomplish fully, even in the method which he pre- 
scribed, the service on which he sent them, because the cities of 
Israel would be destroyed and their population be dispersed by 
the Romans, before they could go over them. Our Lord ap- 
pears to have referred in this expression, "till the Son of Man 
be come," to the time of the death of John the Baptist, when 
his mission to that people as the Messiah was ended, and he 
was about to go forth to them in the character of Son of Man and 
Saviour of all who would come to him, whether the nation and 
the communities composing it would receive him as the Christ 
or not. According to the distinction stated by John i. 11, 12, 
He came to his own as the Christ and his own people received 
him not, but as many as afterwards received him as the Son of 
Man and Saviour of the world, to them gave he power to be- 
come the sons of God, &c. See the original Greek. This will 
be more fully explained hereafter. 

Matt. xi. 1. "And it came to pass that when Jesus had 
made an end of commanding his twelve disciples, (and had sent 
14 * 



106 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

them forth by two and two, Mark vi. 7,) he (also) departed 
thence to teach and to preach in their cities." 

Until this time, the apostles had followed the Lord Jesus as 
learners, witnessing the miracles he performed, but without 
possessing any miraculous powers themselves. Now they were 
to be more or less separated from him, at least for a time.* 
They were to preach or proclaim the presence of the king- 
dom. This was the great fact — the great event of the times — 
the greatest event which has occurred in this world since the 
fall of man. Their mission, then, was of the most important 
nature, even with the restriction before mentioned, that they 
were not commissioned to expound the law or call the nation to 
repentance, as John the Baptist did. Luke iii. 7 — 14. The 
powers they were invested with, and which they exercised in 
the name of Jesus, sufficiently authenticated their proclama- 
tion. 

Matt. xi. 2 — 15. " But John (the Baptist) having heard in 
prison of the (miraculous) works of Christ, sending two of his 
disciples, said to him, Art thou he that should come (6 ep^o/ie- 
po<;) or should we look for another," &c.f 

John had been in prison, according to Dr. Lightfoot, about 
seven or eight months, see note on Luke iii. 20, 21, when 
he sent this question to Jesus, and various are the motives 
which commentators have ascribed to him in sending it. See 
Whitby's note, for some of them ; also Scott and Henry on this 
verse. With Dr. Whitby, we cannot believe that the Baptist 
could make this inquiry on his own behalf, or doubt whether 
Jesus were the Messiah or not ; for he was sent to bear witness 
of him, and received from heaven a sign by which he should 
certainly know him. John i. 6 — 8, 33; iii. 28 — 30. Nor can 
we believe that John sent his disciples for their own satisfac- 
tion in the matter, but as suggested in the note just referred 
to, was moved to do so by the Holy Spirit, for a most 
important end. If we consider what transpired at our Lord's 
baptism, Matt. iii. 14; John i. 33, 34, the question seems 
a very remarkable one for John to put. It was sent publicly, 
and put to Jesus when he was surrounded by multitudes. 
The people knew by this act that Jesus was that mighty 
One of whom John had previously testified in general terms. 

* There are reasons for supposing that after the death of John the Baptist, 
they did not separate from him for the purpose of preaching the kingdom, as 
will appear hereafter. 

f The first verse of this chapter should have been included in the last chap- 
ter. It is probable the true reading is "when John heard of the works of 
Jesus," &c. See Mill. Naebe, Harwood. But as the word is used historically, 
the question is not important to our purpose. 



Christ's testimony to John's character and office. 107 

It was an official and public act, the last and most explicit tes- 
timony of John to the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus. The 
chief intention of the transaction was, however, as we appre- 
hend, that the Lord might publicly testify in the most unquali- 
fied and strongest terms to the character and office of John, 
and formally tender him to the people for their acceptance, as 
the divinely appointed Elias of the economy of law under 
which they were placed. See note on Luke iii. 20, 21. His 
testimony was not only of the strongest kind, but most explicit. 
He declared that John was a prophet and more than a prophet — 
a prophet whose mission had been foretold ; having authority to 
preach a new dispensation. Virtually he declared that neither 
Enoch, nor Noah, nor Abraham, nor Moses, nor David, nor 
Elijah, was greater than John the Baptist. See notes on 
Matthew iii. 1, 2; and John x. 41. Having thus attested 
the character of John, he added, what we paraphrase thus : " If 
ye will receive" not it but Mm, " he shall be to you," now under 
this economy of law, the same as Elias; that is, the same that 
Elias shall hereafter be to you under the economy of grace. 

This offer was made as a test or trial, in a way suited to the 
popular apprehension, in order to show by their neglect or 
rejection of it, the insufficiency of the highest motives, backed 
by all the evidence the nation had of John's authority, enhanced 
by the express testimony of the- Lord Jesus, and the evidence 
of his miracles, to prevail with them to accept John in the 
spirit of his mission; for it should be remembered that the 
coming of Elias was universally and justly regarded by the 
nation as the sure harbinger of Israel's greatest national glory 
and happiness. 

The Lord knew full well what the result would be, yet it 
seemed to the Divine wisdom not the less proper that the test 
should be applied; for the Jews were then the subjects of law, 
and the law assumed that they were capable of performing its 
requirements. Exodus xix. 5, 6. Yet, had they been really 
holy, and, therefore, really capable of fulfilling the law, Elijah 
would have been sent to them at that time, as we may believe, 
and not John. But because salvation by law was not possible, 
and because a dispensation of grace could not be introduced 
except through the failure of the law, and the rejection and 
death of Christ, and consequently of his forerunner, Rom. 
viii. 3; Acts xiii. 39; Bom. iii. 20; Heb. vii. 18, 19, John 
was raised up and sent to them in the place of Elias, with the 
spirit and power of Elias, to perform the office of Elias under 
the law, in order that it might be possible for God, consistently 
with his own holiness, through the rejection and sufferings of 
Christ, to give them the grace to receive the true Elias when 



108 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

he should be sent to them; and so become prepared to receive 
their Mesiah at his second coming. In dealing with Israel, 
God regarded them as the subjects of law, and accountable for 
every breach of it. At the same time he regarded them, as 
they truly were, the subjects of a hopeless depravity, and as 
utterly helpless in themselves. According to this double 
aspect he formed the scheme of redemption, involving, as 
necessary expedients, two advents of Messiah, and two fore- 
runners; yet so, that the purposes and requirements of his' 
law should not be annulled or interfered with by his purposes 
of grace. Wonderful scheme ! Wonderful in the developments 
of the past ! and in the yet greater wonders of the future ! 

From these considerations we may get some proper appre- 
hension of John's character. He was no mediocral person, 
liable to be swayed, or swerved from the purpose for which he 
was raised up, by the disturbing influences of fleshly or human 
appetites and passions, as a reed is shaken by the wind, 
verses 7 and 8. He was great before the Lord. Luke i. 15. 
Everything touching him took hold of the deep mysteries of 
the kingdom, and for that reason imparted a mystery to his 
person and office, which none of his contemporaries could com- 
prehend. See notes on Matt. iii. 1, 3, 6, 11, 12, 14, 17; 
Luke i. 17; John i. 22, 23, 25; x. 41; Luke iii. 20, 21; 
Matt. iv. 12. We add a few' observations upon some of the 
clauses of this passage. 

Matt. xi. 3. "Art thou he that should come?" (lo ei 6 
£p-£Ofizvo<z.) Dr. Whitby remarks, that these words were in 
those days the common style for the Messias. He refers to 
Matt. iii. 11; John i. 15, 27; Matt. xxi. 9; xxiii. 39; Luke 
xix. 38; Hab. ii. 3, cited Heb. x. 37; Dan. vii. 13; Matt. 
xxiv. 30; xxvi. 64. Yet our Lord came also as the Son of 
Man, Matt, xviii. 19; Luke xix. 10; Matt. xx. 28; Mark x. 
45; Luke ix. 66, and that character he openly and publicly 
assumed. In that character he repeatedly declared that he 
would yet come again. Matt. xvi. 27; xxiv. 27, 30; Mark 
xiii. 26"; Luke xxi. 27; Matt. xxiv. 37, 39, 44; xxv. 13, 31. 
The words under consideration in themselves are applicable to 
a coming in either character. Yet the characters are not 
identical, though united in his person. We have seen how 
they came to be united, and how David was affected by the 
revelation of God's purpose to blend them in the heir of his 
throne. See note on Matt. ix. 2 — 6. This twofold character 
or relation in which he was to come, may be one reason for 
the form of the question, which pointed, nevertheless, to his 
Messiahship, i. e. the character which he did not publicly 
assume or claim. Matt. xvi. 20; xxvi. 63; Luke xxii. 67; 



EXPLANATION OF JOHN'S QUESTION. 109 

John x. 24. In this character only, was there any occasion 
for the inquiry. Why, then, it may be inquired, did not John 
put the question to him, plainly as the people did, John x. 24, 
Art thou the Christ? The reason is suggested by the form 
of the answer our Lord returned to John, which consisted in 
an appeal to his works, "Go show John the things that ye do 
hear and see," &c. ; that is to say, let John collect from this 
evidence, whether I am he who Moses and the prophets did 
say should come. See John i. 45. And in the same way he 
answered the people, John x. 24, 25; v. 36, after the death 
of John. 

And if we reflect upon the exalted nature of the office of 
Messiah, we shall perceive a reason for the form of both the 
question and the answer. The attributes and the office of 
Messiah are of so high a nature, that the right to it could not 
be established or proved to human or finite judgment, by the 
mere claim or assertion of man; nor indeed by any merely 
human or natural testimony or proof. So far from it, the 
assertion of a claim to it upon such grounds confutes itself, 
and so in effect our Lord declared. John v. 43; Matt. xxiv. 5. 
Hence the Divine wisdom appointed as the necessary proof of 
our Lord's Messiahship a dispensation of miraculous evidence, 
from which the people were to determine whether he were the 
Christ or not. This explains our Lord's saying to his disci- 
ples after the close of his public ministry — "If I had not done 
among them the works which none other man did, they had not 
had sin," John xv. 24, and also his saying to the people: "If 
I do not the works of my Father, believe me not, but if I do, 
though ye believe not me, believe the works," John x. 37, 38, 
thus appealing, if we may so say, from his own word to his 
works. These considerations explain also the form of John's 
question. He did not fall into the error of the Jews, John x. 
24, nor of the High Priest, Luke xxii. 67, who had no ade- 
quate or proper conception of the mystery of the throne of 
David, or of the Messiah, but being filled with the Holy Ghost, 
and moved by him to send the question, he put it in the only 
form consistent with the Divine plan. 

Matt. xi. 10. "For this is he of whom it is written, Behold 
I send my messenger before thy face which shall prepare the 
way before thee." 

This quotation was made from Mai. iii. 1. If the prophecy 
of the same prophet, Mai. iv. 5, 6, concerning Elijah, was 
applicable to John the Baptist, and was fulfilled by his mission, 
we cannot account for our Lord's omission to quote it. His 
object was to set forth in the most impressive manner, the 
dignity and excellence of John's character and ministry, as 



• 



110 NOTES ON SCRIPTUKE. 

is evident by the next (the 11th) verse. Elijah was the 
prophet whom the nation expected, as the forerunner of Mes- 
siah. Matt. xvii. 10; Mark ix. 11. It was the common 
doctrine of the Scribes. Our Lord, however, did not say, 
"For this is he of whom it is written, Behold I will send Elijah 
the prophet," &c, although the quotation of this prophecy, 
falling in with the preconceived opinion and expectation of the 
nation, and by its explicitness, would have been more im- 
pressive, and for that reason would have been quoted, if it were 
applicable to John. To make up, however, for any difference 
there may be in the two prophecies in this respect, our Lord 
adds (verse 11) in effect, that John the Baptist was equal to 
Elijah, and if any had been born of woman who were greater 
than Elijah, then John was also greater than Elijah; thus in 
the most expressive and unqualified manner, by a sweeping 
comparison, declaring that John was at least the equal if not 
the superior of Elijah the prophet, whom the nation expected. 
The design of the Saviour appears to have been, on the one 
hand, to avoid affirming that John was Elijah, or that the 
prophecy concerning Elijah was fufilled in him ; and on the 
other hand, to affirm that John was at least equal to Elijah, 
and that his ministry among them should have the effect of 
Elijah's, if they would receive him with their hearts, in the spirit 
of his mission, verse 14. How this could be, was a mystery to 
the nation, which our Lord intimated by the words, verse 15, 
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." 

Matt. xi. 12, 13. "And from the days of John the Baptist 
until now, the kingdom of heaven (foa^erat) suffereth violence, 
and the violent take it by force: For all the prophets and the 
law prophesied until John." 

This passage is regarded by. commentators as difficult, and if 
we may judge by the variety of the interpretations put upon it, 
few are more so. We take it in connection with Luke xvi. 16, 
where the same general sentiment is expressed somewhat 
differently. "The law and the prophets were until John. 
Since that time the kingdom of God {euajjeh^erat) is 'preached, 
and every man (^ca^erac) presseth into it." 

We observe that instead of the words (ftca^erat) suffereth 
violence, Luke uses the words {ebayfeh^erat) is preached, and 
instead of the words (ftiaarcu kpiza^ouatv abryv) the violent 
take it by force, Luke uses the words (na^ ei% abrrjv ftca^erat) 
every man presseth into it Is it allowable to interpret the 
earlier by the later text — Matthew by Luke? We do not 
know a safer rule. If the Gospel of Matthew was first written, 
and Luke was acquainted with it, he would, in composing a 
Gospel for Gentile churches, interpret into plain language such 



THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN SUFFERETH VIOLENCE. Ill 

idiomatic or figurative expressions and allusions as would not 
be easily understood except by Jews. Comp. Luke xxiii. 47 
with Matt, xxvii. 54, and see notes on these verses. 

But this rule requires a modification of the translation. The 
word (J}ea£ezae,) which occurs in both places, is translated in 
Matthew, suffereth violence, but in Luke, presseth, i. e. in the 
former it is taken in reality in the passive sense, but in the 
latter as in the active or middle voice. But this is not neces- 
sary. On the contrary, if we interpret the word in the middle 
voice in both places, a clear and consistent sense is elicited. 
In this voice, the word signifies, in this connection, "to press, 
to urge itself upon or against."* Substituting this sense for 
"suffereth violence," the verse will read, "And from the days 
of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven urgeth 
(presseth) itself upon" i. e. upon this generation, for their 
acceptance, which in plain language signifies, is earnestly 
preached to them, (euayyeXc^ezai) and this is the expression of 
Luke, which we may regard as an interpretation of the figure. 

The remaining clause or phrase should be interpreted in a 
sense consistent with the historical facts ; for we do not regard 
it as a precept or evangelical maxim, as most commentators do, 
but as a declaration of the manner in which the preaching of 
the kingdom was received by the Jews during the ministries of 
John the Baptist and our Lord. They did not press into the 
kingdom with a holy urgency. On the contrary, as Luke says, 
(rcac £'C cdjrrjv (Hca^eTat) every man, meaning the generality of 
the people, (presseth) pressed himself against itf — resisted it, 
(for so we interpret the preposition e«c) see Luke xii. 10; 
Matthew xviii. 21 ; Rom. iv. 20 ; or, in the more figurative 
language of Matthew, (xLpxa^oumv) treated it with ruthless 
violence. This interpretation agrees with the fact. John i. 11; 
xii. 37; Rom. xi. 8, 11, 12; Matt, xxiii. 13. Adopting this 
view, we interpret the word (fttaoTat) translated violent, by 
Luke's expression, (thzc ftia^zrac)% every one presseth. It is 

* The word is used in this sense in Exod. xix. 24, Septuagint, though it is 
rendered break through. "Let them not press (or break through) to ascend," 
&c. See also Gen. xxxiii. 11, where it is used (tfiisto-a.ro) to signify the urgency 
which Jacob used with Esau to accept his gifts. Gen xix. 3, where it is said 
Lot (KdLTifiia<ra.ro) pressed the angels greatly. Judges xix. 7, And when the 
man rose up his father-in-law (ifiiao-aro) urged him. 2 Kings v. 16, Naaman 
(n-aptfitao-aro) urged Elisha to take a gift. Exod. xii. 33, The Egyptians were 
urgent (Kartfiiao-avro) upon the people to send them away in haste. 

f See translations of Montanus and Erasmus; also the Yulgate Et omnis in 
illud vim facit. 

% The verbal adjective (fiiaa-rai) employed by Matthew as a descriptio per- 
sonarum, is resolved back by Luke into the verb from which it is derived, and 
Luke's motive for employing a more simple form of expression, it is probable, 
was, as before suggested, that he might be more easily understood by Gentile 
Christians, for whom chiefly he wrote. 



112 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

descriptive or denominative of those to whom the kingdom had 
been preached, or upon whom the kingdom pressed itself; and 
if taken in the active sense, it may be regarded perhaps as an 
example of antiphrasis. See Exod. xix. 24. " Pressers into 
the kingdom/' they thought themselves to be, and such they 
ought to have been. In truth, however, they were rejecters of 
the kingdom, and violent opposers of those who preached it. 

The sense of the passage, then, according to the foregoing 
exposition, may be thus expressed: "The law and the prophets 
extended downwards from Moses to the time of John the 
Baptist. They announced the coming of the kingdom of 
heaven as a future event. But from the beginning of the min- 
istry of John the Baptist until the present moment, a new 
order of things has supervened. The kingdom of heaven has 
come nigh and presseth (urgeth) itself upon this people for their 
acceptance. But this people, who regard themselves and pro- 
fess to be (pressers into) eager expectants of the kingdom, 
(snatch it away, Matt. xiii. 19 — lock it up, as it were, with a 
key, Matt, xxiii. 13) not only resist and reject it, but treat it 
with contumely and ruthless violence."* 

Matt. xi. 25 — 27. "At that time Jesus answered and said, 
I thank thee, Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because 
thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent and hast 
revealed them unto (vrjTtioc^) babes]: even so, Father ; for so 
it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me 
by the Father ; and no man knoweth the Son but the Father, 
neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son, and he to 
whomsoever the Son will reveal him." 

In this ejaculation our Saviour tacitly alluded to the Divine 
constitution of which David speaks in the 8th Psalm, a part of 
which he formally quoted on another occasion. Matt. xxi. 16. 
See note on Matt. ix. 2, 6. The power, by which the enemy 
was to be stilled, the Father saw fit to raise and construct out 
of thej mouths of babes (ex arofiaro^ pyxtwu) and the Saviour 
rejoiced to see the beginning of the glorious work in the 

f Jerome's comment on this verse is, "Grandis enim est violentia in terra 
nos esse generatos, et coelorum sedem quaerere, possidere per virtutem quod 
non tenuimus per naturam." Beda copies Jerome almost verbatim. For 
another specimen of Patristic commentary, see Clemens Alexandrinus t« o 
o-cefyfjLivos. He says, " Nor does the kingdom of God belong to those who indulge 
in sleep and sloth, but the violent take it ; for this is the only good violence, 
(y&* x.*xh Qiov @t*<r&o$du Deo vim ferre) to do violence to God, and to snatch life 
from God." See Whitby, Scott, and Clark. Generally the commentators 
regard this declaration of the Saviour as an evangelical maxim or a rule of 
Christian life, and not as the declaration of a matter of fact merely, touching 
the reception of him and his ministry by the nation; whereas it seems as 
truly a mere record or declaration of a fact, as the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th 
verses are. 



DOMINION OF THE SON OF MAN. 113 

Father's revelation of the mysteries of the kingdom to the little 
circle of humble followers around him. They were (yqmoe) 
babes in knowledge then, and simple-minded, yet made ready 
by Divine influence to receive, upon his assurance, what the 
wise and prudent of the nation contumeliously rejected as un- 
worthy of their regard. See note on Matt. xi. 12, 13. But 
what we desire particularly to notice is the first clause of the 
27th verse. " All things are (have been) delivered unto me of 
my Father"— John xvii. 2; xiii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 25—27; that 
is, all things and all men had been delivered unto him as the 
Son of Man, and with them the sole power and authority to 
reveal the Father and his purposes and to execute his judgments. 
John v. 27. This is what the Psalmist teaches. Ps. viii. 7. 
As Son of Man he was constituted the absolute Lord of this 
lower world, including all its natures, creatures, powers, ener- 
gies, and things. Everything pertaining to it, as before ob- 
served, was put under his feet, i. e. made subject absolutely to 
his will and control. And more than this, not a ray of know- 
ledge of the Father, or of his purposes, could beam upon the 
world, except through him, as Son of Man. 

We may regard this passage as exegetical of the Psalm, or 
as a development of what is implied in the dominion there 
ascribed to him as Son of Man. Paul excepts from the "all 
things delivered to him" — nothing whatever — nor any being 
but God. 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28. We find it difficult to conceive 
that such dominion can be vested in, or be possessed by him as 
Man, . but this is what Paul expressly teaches. For only as 
man is he subject to God, and as the man Christ Jesus he is 
the Mediator between God and man. 1 Tim. ii. 5. In his 
Divine nature he is one with the Father. Consider then how 
great this man is ! How rich he was and how poor he became, 
Matt. viii. 20, that we through his poverty might become rich, 
2 Cor. viii. 9, his brethren, Rom. viii. 29, and sharers in his 
dominion and his throne. Rev. iii. 21 ; 2 Tim. ii. 12. 

Matt. xii. 8. " For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath- 
day. 

Our Lord exculpated his disciples from the charge of Sab- 
bath-breaking on four distinct grounds. (1.) The example of 
David, which their accusers would have been inclined in any 
other case to respect. (2.) By the law of Moses, relating to 
the temple service, which imposed bodily labour on the priests 
on the Sabbath-day. This was a higher authority than the 
example of David. (3.) By the word of God himself, when he 
declared by the prophet Hosea, vi. 6 ; see Micah vi. 6 — 8, that 
he preferred mercy to sacrifice, even to his own appointed 
sacrifices of the temple. This argument enhanced upon the 



' 114 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

last. Finally, (4.) by his own authority as the Son of Man. 
The disciples were his servants, and he was the Lord of the 
Sabbath-day. Upon this last ground, we add a few observa- 
tions. As Son of Man, he was the Lord of the world and of all 
earthly institutions, and the direct object of all earthly allegi- 
ance; and being constituted Mediator by the union of the 
Divine nature in the person of the Son of God to his manhood 
as Son of Man, allegiance could go no higher ; for terminating 
on him it terminated on God, as the fulness of the Godhead 
dwelt in his manhood. Col. ii. 9; i. 19. See John i. 16. As 
man, too, he was and is the Mediator between God and man, 
1 Tim. ii. 5, and the Sabbath and the temple and its sacrifices 
were mediatorial appointments, emanating from him, and sub- 
ject to his will; to establish, suspend, alter, or abolish, ac- 
cording to his pleasure. Nevertheless, in the administration of 
his government he acts in all things according to the will of the 
Father, with whom in his Divine nature he is one. John viii. 
29—38; v. 17, 19, 22, 27; x. 30; xii. 26. Accordingly, in 
the passage under consideration, our Lord* claims absolute 
authority over the Sabbath as the Son of Man — that is, as the 
Adam of whom the Adam of the garden of Eden was but a 
figure, a shadow or type. Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 47. It is 
probable that some readers of the New Testament do not con- 
sider the distinction between the different relations our Lord 
sustained as very important to be observed, inasmuch as they 
were all mysteriously blended in his person; and some perhaps 
habitually regard them as synonymous designations of his per- 
son, rather than as the appropriate designations of his different 
offices or relations. None of the distinctions, however, which 
the Saviour made in respect to his person, offices, or authority, 
can be considered unimportant; and it is conceived that the 
due observance and consideration of them will shed great light 
upon some parts of his discourses which are confessedly diffi- 
cult to explain. Illustrations of this remark will occur as we 
proceed. 

Matt. xii. 9 — 13. "And having departed thence" — from 
the temple — " he went into their synagogue. And behold a 
man having a withered hand was there. And they asked him, 
saying : Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath-days ? that they might 
accuse him. And he said unto them, What man shall there be 
among you that shall have one sheep, and if it fall into a pit on 
the Sabbath-day, will he not lay hold on it and lift it out? 
How much then is a man better than a sheep ? Wherefore it 

* The word "Lord" in this place includes the sense of the Heb. ^SS* 
[ownership,) proprietas, [property) dominion. 



FIRST CONSPIRACY AGAINST JESUS. 115 

is lawful to do well on the Sabbath-days. Then saith he to the 
man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth: and 
it was restored whole, like as the other." 

Luke assigns this miracle to another Sabbath, vi. 6, and he 
adds, that the Saviour also taught. Matthew omits both these 
circumstances; his chief object being to establish, by the 
miracle, the claim of Jesus to be the Lord of the Sabbath, 
verse 8 and note. Observe : the question was addressed to him 
as a religious teacher. He resolved it in the affirmative, and 
to prove his authority, in the character in which he claimed it, 
to expound the law of the Sabbath, he healed the man by simply 
bidding him to use his hand; for that in effect was the meaning 
of his command. The circumstances show that the cure was 
to be ascribed exclusively to the power of his will as Son of 
Man and Lord of the Sabbath-day, verse 8. 

The argument derived from the allowed course of their own 
conduct, verses 11 and 12, in showing mercy to beasts, serves 
to connect these verses with the quotation in the 7th verse from 
Hosea, which shows the logical connection of the passage and 
the Evangelist's reason for disregarding the minor circum- 
stances mentioned by Luke. 

Matt. xii. 14. " Then the Pharisees went out" [of the syna- 
gogue] " and held a council against him, how they might destroy 
him." 

The question was insidiously put, though with outward 
respect. The argument derived from their own conduct was 
unanswerable, and the proof he had given of his authority of 
the most convincing kind, yet neither the argument nor the 
proof averted or softened the malice of the Pharisees. On the 
contrary, they then for the first time formally conspired against 
his life. See John xi. 47, 48. 

Matt. xii. 15. "But Jesus, knowing it, departed thence, 
and great multitudes followed him and he healed them all." 

It may be inferred from this verse, that there were other 
diseased persons in the synagogue at that time, who had come 
on the Sabbath-day to be healed. This may have given occa- 
sion to the question, verse 10. See Luke xiii. 14. If such 
were the fact, the Saviour did not stay for the purpose of heal- 
ing them, owing to the impending danger. According to Mark, 
iii. 7, he went to the sea-side beyond the confines of Judea. It 
is pertinent to remark in this place as before, see Matt. ii. 12, 
13, that the Saviour seldom employed miraculous power for his 
personal protection, but in his ordinary intercourse with the 
people, always observed the rules of human prudence to avoid 
impending clangers. See Matt. iv. 7. 

Again, we observe a characteristic difference between the 



116 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Evangelists Mark and Matthew. Mark enters into particulars. 
He mentions the place to which the Saviour retired — that his 
disciples went with him, and that the multitudes which followed 
in his train were partly Galileans and partly from Judea, where 
he then was: Matthew, on the other hand, discerns in this 
conduct of the Saviour the fulfilment of an important prophecy, 
and a prophetical note or sign of his character. For he not 
only retired from the threatening danger to a great distance, 
but he charged the multitudes who followed him that they should 
not make him known, that it might be fulfiled which was spoken 
by Esaias the prophet, saying : 

Matt. xii. 18. "Behold my servant whom I have chosen, 
my beloved in whom my soul is well pleased, I will put my 
Spirit upon him and he shall show judgment to the Gen- 
tiles." 

This passage is cited by the Evangelist from Isaiah xlii. 
1 — 4, and it has respect to our Saviour as the Son of Man. 
Only in that character could he be called a servant or receive 
the Divine Spirit. In his Divine nature he was equal to and 
one with the Father. But as man, though the divinely 
constituted absolute Lord of the world, he could be subject, as 
a servant, to God the Father. John xiv. 28; 1 Cor. xv. 28. 
But this prophecy had respect to him also as the Messiah of 
Israel. This is evident from the reference to the Gentiles in 
contradistinction to Israel. We have seen (note on Matt. ix. 
2 — 6) that God's covenant with David contemplated the incar- 
nation of the second Adam (or as an old writer describes him, 
the Glory-man,) in his family, so that the heir, that is Lord, of 
the world should be the heir of his throne; and we have also 
seen how this purpose affected him. In the passage under 
consideration one object of the inspired prophet was to describe 
the public demeanour of this great being, in his subject con- 
dition and servant-form, as a note or mark by which he might 
be known. 

Matt. xii. 19. "He shall not strive nor cry, neither shall 
any in the streets hear his voice" — as a voice of terror, II eb. 
xii. 19; Exod. xx. 19; Deut. v. 5 — 25, during his merciful 
visitation. And then again the gentleness with which he will 
carry on his work. 

"A bruised reed shall he not break, and the dimly burning 
flax shall he not extinguish," till the time for the consummation 
of his work in the restitution of all things shall come. See 
Isa. xlii. 13 — 15.* The same contrast between meekness and 

* The first eight verses of the 42d chapter of Isaiah relate to the first advent 
of Christ, and the dispensation of grace which he then introduced. At the 9th 



EFFECT OF CHRIST'S MIRACLES. 117 

majesty, power and weakness, is stated by the Saviour in the 
context of a passage already remarked upon. Matt. xi. 27 — 30. 
"All things are delivered unto me of my Father, and no one 

knoweth the Son but the Father." "Come unto me all 

ye that labour, for I am meek and lowly of heart, and ye shall 
find rest." 

Matt. xii. 20. "Till he send forth judgment unto victory." 
See "Critical Conjectures," Lord's Theological and Literary 
Journal, vol. vii. 563 — 569. 

Matt. xii. 22 — 24. " Then they brought to him (a demoniac) 
one possessed with a devil, blind and dumb, and he healed him, 
insomuch that the blind and dumb (man) both spake and saw. 
And all the people were amazed (i-'.aza^To) and said, Is not 
this the Son (rather, is this the Son) of David (Messiah)? 
But when the Pharisees saw it — (this surmise of the people) — 
they said : This felloiu (say mail) doth not cast out devils, but 
by Beelzebub, the prince of devils." 

The preceding verses from the 14th are digressive. At 
these verses the Evangelist resumes the subject of our Lord's 
miracles. He had already mentioned several, which were 
performed, as we have seen, for particular purposes. His 
object now is, to show the effect of our Lord's miracles upon 
those who witnessed them. Already, chap. ix. 32, 31, he had 
alluded to this point, but now he returns to it to make a more 
full explanation, and it is probable, especially with a view to 
record our Lord's reply to the injurious thoughts of the Phari- 
sees. On the former occasion, just referred to, he says the 
multitudes {kdaofiaaav) marvelled, and confessed that the like 
had never been seen in Israel; while the Pharisees affected to 
believe that the Lord Jesus was an underling of the prince of 
devils, and that he derived his wonderful powers from him. 

verse the inspired prophet pauses. He announces that the predictions relative 
to the gospel to the Gentiles and the dispensation of grace are fulfilled. He 
imagines himself as standing on the dividing line of a dispensation past, and a 
dispensation to come, and looking forward into the new economy, he proceeds 
to describe the manner in which it will be introduced. "The former pre- 
dictions; lo! they are come to pass" — that is, the predictions relative to the 
present dispensation of the gospel. "Xew events I now declare unto you — 
before they spring forth, I make them known unto you" — that is, the events 
relating to the economy of the restitution of all things. Then the prophet by 
a bold figure calls on all mariners and things in the sea — the distant sea-coasts, 
the deserts, the cities and the villages, &c, — in one word, upon the world as 
it now is, to sing a new song to Jehovah and utter his praise in prospect of the 
events he is about to declare. The prophet then announces the second advent 
of the Lord; and the description of it in all its parts is a sort of antithesis to 
his description in the previous verses of the first advent, "Jehovah shall go 
forth as a mighty man, (verse 13th) like a mighty warrior shall he rouse his 
vengeance. He shall cry aloud, he shall shout amain, he shall exert his 
strength against his enemies," &c. 



118 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

But on seeing the miracle we are now considering, the con- 
clusions of the common people assume a more definite form; 
they seemed to regard it as a legitimate proof of his Messiah- 
ship. The Pharisees, provoked by this turn of the popular 
mind, and apprehensive of the final result, contemptuously 
ascribed the miracle to the power of Beelzebub. 

It is important to observe, that none doubted the fact of the 
miracle. So manifestly clear was it, beyond the possibility of 
any deception or delusion, that the .most virulent and deter- 
mined opposers of the Saviour were obliged to admit it as a 
fact, and avoid its effect by accounting for it in a manner most 
injurious to him. The miracle, therefore, fulfilled its chief 
design. See note on John x. 41. Those who saw it were 
the proper judges of the fact. They had direct and the 
highest evidence possible of the reality and truth of the mir- 
acle, and the Jews of succeeding generations are in reason 
bound by their judgment. See note on John xx. 29. The only 
argument, therefore, which is fairly open to the Jews and 
infidels of the present day is, whether the gospel is fabricated 
and false, or a true record or history. This is a question to 
be resolved by historical evidence, like all others of the same 
nature. Admit the record to be true, and the whole question 
is decided; for those who were eye-witnesses were more com-- 
petent judges of the reality of the miracle than any others 
can be. 

Matt. xii. 25. "But Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said 
to them: Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to 
desolation ; and every city or house divided against itself shall 
not stand." 

It is evident from this verse, that the Pharisees did not 
give audible utterance to their calumny, in the hearing of 
Jesus. As before remarked, his demeanour imposed upon them, 
on most occasions, a powerful restraint. See note on Matt. 
ix. 2 — 6. It is not improbable, however, that they uttered 
this calumny among the people, when they supposed they 
would not be heard by him. 

The Saviour's answer was founded upon earthly analogies, 
the justness and force of which were obvious. Assuming that 
Satan, the prince of devils, whom they called Beelzebub, had 
a kingdom in this world — (a truth which on other occasions he 
expressly affirmed, John xiv. 30; xii. 31; see Matt. xxv. 41; 
Coloss. ii. 15: Eph. ii. 2) — which he desired to preserve and 
maintain, it was absurd to suppose he would make war upon 
himself, or permit malignant spirits, subject to him, to make war 
on each other; for this would weaken or destroy the dominion 
he had acquired in this world, by the fall of man. This was 



CHRIST'S REPLY TO THE PHARISEES. 119 

his first answer, and it was a complete answer to the whole 
accusation. For, 

Matt. xii. 26. "If Satan cast out Satan, he is divided 
against himself. How then shall his kingdom stand?" 

Bengel's remark is, " Satan or the devil is one. I, says 
our Lord, cast out Satan. In the kingdom of darkness there 
is none greater than Satan. If therefore your words are 
true, it must be Satan who casts out Satan. But this is 
clearly absurd. One kingdom, one city, one house is not 
divided against itself, neither is one spirit divided against 
himself." 

Our Lord's second answer was in effect, that the calumny 
though malignant, was not broad enough to meet the whole 
case. There were others of their own people besides himself, 
who cast out devils. They did not do this with their own 
power. Mark ix. 38; Luke ix. 49; x. 17. These were public, 
notorious facts. How did they explain them? Whence did 
they derive such extraordinary power? Ask them; let them 
be judges for you in this matter. Such appears to be the 
import of the following verse. 

Matt. xii. 27. "If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by 
whom do your children cast them out ? Therefore they shall 
be vour judges." 

These persons were either the disciples of the Lord Jesus, 
or others who acted in his name, and therefore were not in 
league with Satan, nor consciously acting by his power.* If 
these persons should confess that they acted by Satan's power, 
the confession would be false, or it would prove that Satan 
himself was demented, and was no longer acting as a reason- 
able being. If they confessed they acted in the name and by 
the power of Jesus, they would be witnesses for him. Having 
shown to the Pharisees in the presence of the people the 
absurdity of ascribing to. the power of Satan his miracles of 
power over Satan, he gives the true explanation, and draws 
the only conclusion which this miracle warranted. 

Matt. xii. 28. "But if I, by the Spirit (by the finger, Luke 

* Some have supposed that the Saviour alluded to exorcists, but it is not 
easy to discover the reason of this opinion, or the applicability of the passage 
thus interpreted, to the matter in hand, if such were the allusion. We have 
no reason to believe that any person during the personal ministry of our Lord 
cast out devils in any other name, or by any other power than his. Indeed 
his power over evil spirits and the unvarying rigor with which he exercised it, 
compelling them to flee from his presence, was one of the .decisive marks of 
his Messiahship. Xote on Matthew viii. 28 — 82. From the time the devil 
departed from the Saviour (d^oi x*ipov) until the evening of the last supper and 
the giving of the sop to Judas, we suppose that neither Satan, nor any unclean 
spirit subject to him, voluntarily sought the presence of Jesus. 



120 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

xi. 20) of God cast out devils, then the kingdom of God has 
come upon* you." 

This conclusion is in support of his authority as a preacher 
of the kingdom, Matt. iv. 17 ; ix. 35, and maintains that his 
miracles of power over Satan were of themselves sufficient 
evidence of the truth of his proclamation of it, without taking 
into account his other miraculous works. This could not be, if 
Satan were an imaginary being, and his kingdom in this world 
consequently unreal. Both the accusation of the Pharisees 
and the response of the Saviour assumed that there is such a 
being as Satan, — that he has a kingdom in this world which he 
desires and endeavours to maintain with all his intelligence and 
power; that he has evil spirits under him, to execute his pur- 
poses, who act in harmony with his policy and purposes, and 
that he conducts his govern ment as an intelligent ruler of a 
kingdom or city or household would, so as to produce harmony 
of action, and avoid a division of his forces and strength, to 
the destruction or detriment of his grand design. 

Matt. xii. 29. "How can one enter into the house of a 
strong man and spoil (despoil him of) his goods, unless he first 
bind the strong man ? Then, indeed, he will (may) spoil (make 
spoil of) his house." 

This verse contains another distinct answer to the Pharisees, 
founded upon the effect produced by the miraculous powers of 
the Saviour. The world is the house of Satan. It is the seat 
of his dominion. Bengel in loco. He is never called, however, 
the king of the world, says Bengel, because he is a usurper. 
But he is called the prince of this world, from the greatness of 
the control he has in it, restrained though it be, by the power 
and the providence of God. Yet by reason of the power per- 
mitted to him, Satan is called by the Saviour a strong man, or, 
as Luke xi. 21 has it, a strong man armed. Into this house of 
Satan he, as the Son of Man and. rightful Lord of it, had 
entered. Satan and his hosts cower before him, for they know 
him. His very word proves his lordship over the world, for it 
binds Satan, the usurping prince of it, and all his hosts of 
unclean and malignant spirits, and delivers their captives. Luke 
xiii. 16. The strength of the allegory we cannot realize, 
owing to our inadequate conceptions of the world of evil spirits, 
and of the greatness of the power they exercise. Eph. vi. 12 ; 
ii. 2; 1 Peter v. 8; Rev. xii. 12; Col. ii. 15; Matt. xiii. 39. 

Matt. xii. 31, 32: "Wherefore I say unto you all manner 

* 'EipBcuriv «<|>' v(a&s not merely nyytM has drawn nigh, but is actually come to 
you, and (hro; C/ua>v k<rn, Luke xvii. 21) is actually in the midst of you as a 
nation. The words are expressive of the actual (sr«if>cvcr/si) presence of the 
kingdom, which the Lord's presence proved. 



SINS AGAINST THE SON OF MAN AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 121 

of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blas- 
phemy against the Spirit; that shall not be forgiven unto men. 
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man it 
shall be forgiven him. But whosoever speaketh against the 
Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him ; neither in this world 
nor in the world to come." 

These verses have been the subject of much discussion, and 
of anxious inquiry into their meaning. Perhaps we. do not 
commonly consider them from the proper point of view. The 
following suggestions are submitted for consideration. A con- 
trast is stated between sins against the Holy Spirit, and sins 
against himself as Son of Man. As Son of Man he came into 
the world to lay down his life as a ransom for many. Matt. xx. 
28 ; Mark x. 45 ; Luke ix. 56. Hence, although he was and 
is the Lord of the world, and of all men as Son of Man, and 
entitled to their allegiance and love, the sins of men against 
him in that character, i. e. as Son of Man, might be forgiven, 
because they were within the scope and purposes of his advent 
at that time. He knew from the beginning that he would be 
contumeliously rejected, and the sacrifice he was about to make 
of his body was ample to atone for all the sins they could pos- 
sibly commit against him in that character. Hence he prayed 
to the Father from his cross that he would forgive the last and 
most atrocious of their sins against him as the Son of Man. 
But the Holy Spirit who dwelt in him, and acted through him 
and by him, came not for such a purpose. The demonstrations 
of his presence and power, through the Lord Jesus, were 
designed to authenticate and prove beyond all reasonable doubt, 
his divine mission as Son of Man. They challenged obedience 
and submission to him as God's messenger, and the hearty 
reception and belief of all that he taught. To ascribe these 
demonstrations of the Holy Spirit's presence and power, there- 
fore, to the power and presence of Satan, was to do what they 
could to frustrate the Divine purposes, and prevent for ever the 
world's redemption. It was in effect calling the Holy Spirit, 
who dwelt in Jesus, an unclean spirit, Mark iii. 30, and there- 
fore a blasphemy against God. It was taking part with Satan 
in God's controversy with him ; it was complicity in Satan's 
sin, which, in its very nature, is unpardonable. 

In this consideration lies the force of the verse preceding 
these: "He that is not with me"- — on my side in this contro- 
versy, "is against me, and he that gathereth not. with me, scat- 
tered abroad" with Satan, and shall have part in his irreversi- 
ble doom. 

Matt. xii. 33. "Either make the tree good, and his (its) 
16 



122 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his (its) fruit 
corrupt; for the tree is known by its fruit." 

A proverbial expression. By the tree he means himself, 
and by the fruits of the tree, his miraculous works; which 
were undeniably good and beneficent in their nature and effects. 
The sense, as we conceive, is expressed in the following para- 
phrase: 

Instead of calumniating me inconsistently as you do, either 
confess that I am a good man, and that I perform these mira- 
cles of mercy by the power and according to the will of God, 
or if you persist in saying that I am a wicked man, and do 
these miracles by the power and according to the will of Satan, 
deny that the works I do are beneficent and good, and such as 
become the power and the goodness of God to perform. Nay, 
more: to be consistent, you should affirm that my works are 
evil, and such as it becomes Satan, the father of lies and the 
author of misery, to accomplish: for in God's kingdom of 
nature, the tree is known, and infallibly judged of, by the fruit 
it produces. 

• Matt. xii. 38. " Then certain of the Scribes and of the 
Pharisees answered, saying: Master, we would see a sign from 
thee." 

A similar passage occurs in Matt. xvi. 1 — 4. We may take 
them together, as the proper exposition of both is the same. 
This question was put after our Lord had publicly performed 
many miracles, the reality of which could not be denied. But 
they were such miracles as he enumerated in his answer to John 
the Baptist. Matt. xi. 5. He had restored to life the son of 
the widow at Nam, healed many persons of their diseases and 
infirmities, and cast out many devils. These miracles did not 
satisfy the Scribes and Pharisees. They demanded a miracle 
of another nature — a sign from heaven. Luke xi. 16. Erasmus 
supposed that there was an allusion in this demand to our 
Lord's claim to a Divine nature, and the aid of the Holy 
Spirit. We know not how this may be, and it is not important 
to inquire. Our Lord's answer to the demand contains the 
instruction which deserves chiefly to be noticed. It may be 
paraphrased thus: "In the common affairs of this life you are 
contented with probable grounds of judgment. You judge of 
the approaching weather by the appearance of the sky, and 
regulate your conduct in your most important worldly concerns 
accordingly. In so doing you act wisely ; for this is the kind 
of evidence God in his providence gives in such matters. Just 
so in respect to the times of the kingdom, which I preach unto 
you. God has given you in the Scriptures the signs, by which 
you may judge of its near approach, and that, too, with much 



THE PHARISEES' DEMAND FOR SIGNS. 123 

greater certainty than you can of the events of his common 
providence. In my life, my doctrine, and my daily works, per- 
formed in the presence of you all, you have the divinely ap- 
pointed signs of the coming kingdom. Yet not content with 
these, you demand signs of another nature, and such signs as 
the Scriptures do not authorize you to expect; which, if given, 
would not be so sure grounds of belief as these signs which you 
already have.* Therefore God will not give you the signs you 
demand, nor other than such as you now have, except one, 
which will come too late to prevent your guilty rejection of me 
and the kingdom I preach, namely, the sign of Jonas the 
prophet, whose history typically sets forth my burial and my 
resurrection." 

This answer proceeds upon the assumption, that the Jewish 
people were the subjects of law, and bound by its requirements 
— that in dealing with them, God had given them sufficient evi- 
dence of his will, and the very evidence which he had told them 
beforehand, he would give them, and that he would hold them 
responsible and guilty if they rejected it. The Saviour 
exhibited to his disciples in private, it is true, evidence of his 
Divine character which he withheld from the nation at large. 
See note on Matt. viii. 23 — 27. But this evidence, so to 
speak, was outside of the Messianic prophecies, and therefore 
not the kind of evidence upon which the nation at large was 
to be tried. Had he been transfigured in the temple before 
the multitudes, or cast himself unharmed from its pinnacle ; or 
had he walked upon the waters in a tempest, or hushed the 
whirlwinds by his word in the presence of the Pharisees the 
the rulers and the people, no doubt the minds of his fiercest 
enemies and. revilers would have been overpowered and awed 
into submission ; but their hearts would have remained selfish 
and corrupt, and themselves as unfit subjects of the kingdom 

* A popular commentator remarks, on Matt. viii. 33 : " That the purpose of 
the Saviour's miracles was to confirm his Divine mission." Upon this we have 
nothing to say; but he goes on to remark, "that it might as well have been 
done by splitting rocks or removing mountains, or causing water to run up 
steep hills, as by any other display of Divine power." Upon this remark, we 
observe, that if the Scriptures had predicted that Messiah should perform such 
works as these, then they would have been the appropriate marks or signs of 
his character. But such manifestations of power would not have been in accord- 
ance with the Scriptures as we have them, and therefore if the Saviour had 
made them, they would not have proven that he was the Messiah whom Moses 
and the prophets did say should come. See note on Matt. xi. 3 — 4. The force 
of the evidence which our Lord's miracles furnished consisted in this, that 
while it fully and accurately corresponded with the prophecies of the Messiah, 
his works were such as no other man ever did, and therefore left no room for 
a reasonable doubt, that he was the Messiah whose mission was foretold. John 
v. 39; xv. 24. 



124 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

as before. See notes on Luke xxiii. 35 ; Matt, xxvii. 39 — 43 ; 
Mark xv. 29—32. 

Matt. xii. 43 — 45. " When the unclean spirit is gone out 
of a man, he walketh through dry places seeking rest and 
findeth none. Then he saith, I will return to my house, whence 
I came out. And when he is come he findeth it empty, swept, 
and garnished. Then he goeth and taketh with himself seven 
other spirits more wicked than himself, and they enter in and 
dwell there, and the last state of that man is worse than the 
first. Even so shall it be also unto this wicked generation. 1 " 

A prophetical allegory, especially applicable to the Jews, 
which shadows forth their future character and moral condition, 
as the last clause shows. During our Lord's personal ministry 
among that people a new order of things existed. The king- 
dom of heaven had come nigh. The Son of Man, the rightful 
Lord of the world, had come to take possession of his own, and 
expel the enemy and usurper, or, in the words of the Psalmist, 
to still the enemy and the avenger. Ps. viii. 2. During that 
period Satan was disarmed. He had fallen from the heaven of 
his power. Luke x. 18. His kingdom was disturbed by adverse 
influences. He was liable to be banished, with his hosts, by 
the word of Jesus, the true Melchisedec, to the abyss of dark- 
ness, and would have been at that time, had the Jews, as a 
nation, received him with the obedience of faith: but they 
received him not. John i. 11. Even the whole world felt the 
presence of its rightful king, through the restraint which his 
presence had put upon the powers of darkness. Wars in a 
great measure had ceased throughout the earth ; and according 
to some histories of those times, the oracles of heathenism were 
silent. We see nothing incredible in these accounts given us 
by early Christian writers, because Satan, the author of them, 
was, as it were, cast out of his house and respited from the 
abyss, only until the Lord should be received by his people, if 
they would receive him. This was the period represented in 
the allegory, of his walking through dry places in search of 
rest, but not finding it. 

At the close of our Lord's ministry this condition was 
changed. The kingdom was withdrawn, and the Son of Man 
ascended up where he was before. The hour (or season) of the 
power of darkness returned. Satan, the prince of darkness, 
resumed his possessions, and reinstated himself in his former 
sway, with intenser energies than ever before. He found his 
house prepared to receive him. The fulfilment of this allegori- 
cal prophecy may be read, in its beginning, in the history of 
the crucifixion, and, in its sequel, in the history of the Jewish 
war by Josephus. According to his description of the enormi- 



THE JEWS AT THE CLOSE OF OUR LORD'S MINISTRY. 125 

ties of sin and cruelty practised by the leaders of the factions 
and their adherents, the nation, during the remaining short 
period of its existence, may be regarded as the impersonation 
of Satan — a demoniac of gigantic proportions and energies, 
saved from self-destruction only by the destroying sword of 
Rome.* 

The allegory thus interpreted, is in part parallel with the 
Saviour's explicit prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, as 
recorded in Matt, xxiv., Mark xiii., and Luke xxi., but with 
this difference that the prophecy foretells the outward facts 
which were to be developed in providence and recorded in 
history, whereas the stress of the allegory lies upon the Satanic 
influence working underneath the surface of things — in fact, in 
the very heart of the nation, which resulted in its destruction. 
It should be observed, however, that the mercy of God res- 
trained their madness, and postponed their calamity until the 
Gospel had been universally preached to the nation, under the 
administration of the Holy Spirit. See note on Acts iii. 19 — 21. 

Matt. xii. 46 — 50. "While he yet talked to the people, 
behold his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to 
speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother 
and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. 
But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my 
mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth 
his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother 
and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my 
Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, 
and mother." 

The force of this remark of the Saviour lies in the contrast 
tacitly drawn by him, between mankind as fallen and man as 
redeemed; between the Adam of Eden and himself as the second 
Adam, and their respective races. Augustine strikingly repre- 
sents the whole human race as, in a certain sense, only two men 
— the first and the second Adam, the race of each being sum- 

* Josephus, Pref. 4, says, " It appears to me that the misfortunes of all men, 
from the beginning of the world, if they be compared to those of the Jews, 
are not so considerable as they were; while the authors of them were not 
foreigners neither" («*/ nroww ait to? ouJu; oxkgqvxoc) This agrees with the Saviour's 
prediction, Matt. xxiv. 31; Mark xiii. 19; Luke xxi. 23, 24. In Book V., 
chap. xiii. g 6, he says: "And here I cannot but speak my mind, and what the 
concern I am under dictates to me, and it is this: I suppose that had the 
Romans made any longer delay in coming against these villains (dxirnpicvc) that 
the city would either have been swallowed up by the ground opening upon 
them, or been overflowed by water, or else been destroyed by such thunder as 
the country of Sodom perished by; for it had brought forth a generation of 
men much more atheistial than were those that suffered such punishments ; 
for by their madness it was, that all the people came to be destroyed." See 
Matt. xi. 20—24. 



126 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

med up and represented in their respective Head.* In the 
passage under consideration, our Lord spoke as the Adam or 
Head of his redeemed race, which he was to gather out of the 
race of the fallen Adam, and transfer to, and as it were, to 
ingraft into himself as a new stock, so that they should be- 
come a new and distinct family or kindred of human nature — a 
new world of mankind. In that new world, the distinctions of 
mother, sister, and brother, the Saviour taught, would all be 
absorbed in a higher, holier, closer, more endearing, and more 
enduring relation — that of perfect union between all his re- 
deemed to each other and to him, and through him to the 
Father, by one and the same tie — the Holy Spirit. 

Anticipating the consummation of the glorious work, upon 
which he had entered, he points to his disciples, as the repre- 
sentatives of the whole family of his redeemed, and says: 
"Behold my true and lasting kindred. These and such as 
these, who do the will of my Father, are in the Divine scheme 
and purpose more closely allied to me than any can possibly be 
by ties of blood and earthly kindred, which are frail and soon 
broken, and when once broken, can never be renewed in their 
blessed influences, except through the covenant of redemption." 
We should mistake the meaning greatly were we to suppose the 
Saviour intended to speak lightly of his kinsfolk, or dispa- 
ragingly of them, except as being, like all others, even his 
disciples, to whom he pointed, of the race of the fallen Adam, 
and needing alike to be redeemed by his death and glorified by 
his Spirit, by being created anew in his image as the second 
Adam. Then all will stand in equal nearness to him, whether 
mother, brother, sister, or unallied by kindred or any earthly 
affinity, otherwise than through the common Father of the 
race, whose nature he took. 

Matt. xiii. The parables or similitudes of the kingdom 
contained in this chapter, belong in part to the category of 
public and in part to the category of private instruction. See 
note on Matt. iv. 17. To the former we assign the parables of 
the sower, of the tares, of the mustard seed, of the leaven, 
verse 34. To the latter category we assign the parables of the 
hid treasure, of the merchant seeking goodly pearls, and of 
the net cast into the sea. The explanation of the parables 
of the sower, verses 18 — 23, and of the tares of the field, 

* " Primus homo, Adam sic olim defunctus est, ut tamen post ilium secundus 
homo sit Christus; cum tot hominum millia inter ilium et hunc orta sint. Et 
ideo manifestum est, pertinere ad ilium, om'nem qui ex ilia successione propa- 
gatus nascitur; sicut ad istum pertinet omnis qui gratiae largitate in illo 
nascitur. Unde fit ut totum genus humanum quodam modo sint homines duo; 
primus et secundus." 



SIMILITUDES OF THE KINGDOM. 127 

verses 37 — 43, we also assign to the category of private instruc- 
tion. 

Our Lord's public similitudes of the kingdom are expository 
of his proclamation of the kingdom, iv. 17; ix. 35; x. 7, and 
therefore belong to his functions, as preacher of the kingdom. 
Most of them very clearly intimate, that there would be some 
delay in its outward manifestation and establishment. Thus, 
by the parable of the tares of the field, the people were taught 
that the kingdom would not appear until the time represented 
by the harvest should come, which implies that the time required 
for the culture and growth of the seed sown must precede it. 
In the parable of the nobleman, Luke xix. 15, the interval 
between his first and second advent, and the establishment of 
his kingdom, was shadowed forth by the nobleman's departure, 
absence, and return. In the parable of the mustard seed, it is 
the tree which represented the kingdom, but the tree was the 
slow product of the seed, then about to be planted. The hidden 
leaven which required time to produce its effect, was another 
allegory of the same import. Thus, by these parables the 
people were taught, that although the kingdom was then nigh 
— at hand, indeed, in the very midst of them, Luke xvii. 21, 
as a nation, yet for some cause, which he did not publicly 
explain, it would not immediately appear. It was this seeming 
incongruity, probably, that gave occasion to the inquiry of the 
Pharisees, Luke xvii. 20, " When the kingdom of God should 
come." The Lord, as well as John the Baptist, had preached 
to them that the kingdom of heaven was at hand ; but it did not 
outwardly appear. His parables significantly intimated that it 
would not immediately appear. How, then, could it be at hand? 
When will it appear ? This was their question. But the ques- 
tion touched upon a mystery, about which they had no right to 
inquire. The kingdom had come to the nation, and was, so to 
speak, in the midst of them, if the nation would accept it, with 
the obedience of faith. They were concerned to know simply the 
fact, and the duty which the fact imposed on them was to accept 
it. They had no right to know what God had resolved to do 
upon their disobedience and sinful rejection of the kingdom. 
This was a part and parcel of the mysteries of the kingdom 
which it was not given to them to know, verse 11. Indeed they 
could not fully be made known to them without a full disclosure 
of the consequences of their rejection of the Lord Jesus, of his 
death, resurrection, and ascension, of the new dispensation of 
grace, and of his second coming at the close of it. 

These considerations show the importance of the distinction 
before taken, Matt. iv. 17, between our Lord's public functions 
as a minister of the circumcision, and his private functions as 



128 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

a teacher of disciples. His public functions were discharged 
in strict accordance with the legal economy to which the nation 
was then subject. The duty of the nation was, to have faith 
in him, as their Messiah come, and to become willing subjects 
of the kingdom he preached, and that too as subjects of the 
law. Exod. xix. 5. That was the sum of it. His public 
instructions, therefore, were founded on the then present truth 
and the obligations which the law under which they lived imposed 
on the nation in consequence thereof. His private instructions 
to his disciples, on the other hand, were chiefly bottomed on 
foreseen events, and consequently looked forward to the dispen- 
sation of grace, about to be established, through their instru- 
mentality, at least in part. This was a mystery of the king- 
dom, which it was given to them to know, verse 11, and which 
he explained to them from time to time as far as they were 
able to bear (comprehend) it. See Matt. xvi. 21 — 23 ; John 
xvi. 12. 

It is very observable, however, that the disciples, with the 
knowledge they then had, were incapable of fully understand- 
ing the mysteries involved or shadowed forth in these parables. 
They did not at that time know, that their Master would be 
rejected and put to death, nor the purpose of God to cast off 
their nation for a time, and establish an economy of grace for 
all nations. Hence these events are not so much as alluded to 
in the explanation of the parables of the sower and of the 
tares, although these parables are applicable to all time, until 
the Lord's second coming, at the end of this world. Yet the 
explanations given were sufficient, with the inspiration of the 
Holy Spirit, for their future instruction, John xvi. 13, and 
form an important part of those evangelical truths out of 
which the sublime doctrines of the Epistles of the apostles are 
derived. 

A question has been made by some theologians, whether the 
Epistles contain any doctrines not taught in the Gospels. If 
the foregoing observations are well founded, we may answer, 
that undoubtedly they do contain doctrines which are not to be 
found in our Lord's public instruction of the people.* But if 
his private instructions to his disciples and others, who sought 
him with a teachable spirit, be carefully considered, they will 
be found to contain the germ of all the great doctrines of the 
Epistles. Yet in the germ only ; for our Lord in his very last 

* Perhaps we should distinguish also between the public instructions of our 
Lord before and after the death of John the Baptist. John's death was an epoch 
in the nation's trial, as we shall have occasion to show hereafter, and we may 
observe a marked difference in our Lord's public discourses after that event. 
See the sixth and subsequent chapters of John's Gospel. 



PARABLE OP THE SOWER AND OE THE TARES. 129 

discourse with them, before he suffered, designedly forbore to 
enlarge upon and develope the doctrines he touched upon, 
alleging expressly as the reason, their inability to bear them. 
John xv. 26 ; xvi. 12, 13 ; Acts i. 8 ; Luke xxiv. 49. Many 
things which he thus intimated during his intercourse with 
them could not be understood, except in the light of coming 
events, and for that reason, we suppose, he left their develop- 
ment to the Holy Spirit. 

We add a few observations upon particular portions of this 
chapter. Verses 3 — 8 and 19 — 23. The great instrumentality 
by which the kingdom is to be introduced, is preaching " the 
word of the kingdom," verse 19, and the design of the parable 
of the sower is to set forth the effect of preaching, during all 
time, .until the kingdom shall come with power. Observation 
and experience show, that the parable is not to be limited to 
our Lord's personal ministry. It has, therefore, an evangelical 
sense and application, and for that reason chiefly it was pri- 
vately explained to the disciples as one of the mysteries of the 
kingdom. It sets forth the chief impediments in the way of 
this instrumentality, and accounts for its limited success : They 
are, the ever-vigilant and active opposition of Satan, tribula- 
tions, and persecutions, worldly cares, and the delusive love of 
riches. Verses 19 — 22. The parable gives no intimation that 
the institution of preaching will ultimately overcome and sur- 
vive them, or have unobstructed progress and success. But 
elsewhere we are taught, that preaching itself shall cease, when 
the knowledge of the Lord shall everywhere prevail. Jer. 
xxxi. 34; Heb. viii. 11. See Mai. i. 11, and contrast Matt, 
xiii. 19 with Rev. xx. 1 — 3. 

Matt. xiii. 24 — 30. The parable of the tares of the field. 

This parable is an allegorical representation of the state of 
the world during the interval between the first and second 
advent of the Son of Man. It is closely connected with the 
parable just noticed. The principal character in both is the 
game — a sower of seed; — but the lessons inculcated are different 
in several respects. The parable of the sower sets forth the 
scantiness of the crop, judged of by the seed sown, and accounts 
for it by various causes. This parable shows, that the crop 
actually produced is encumbered by the admixture of a worth- 
less growth, and explains how it happened. It is a material 
circumstance in this parable, that the mischief is of such a 
nature, and done in such a way, that it must be endured, until 
its power to harm is spent — that is, during the whole period of 
the growth, and ripening until the harvest. The circumstances, 
it is obvious, are all taken from common life, and the whole 
action represented is such as may have frequently occurred in 



130 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

human affairs, which if we suppose, we have the case of a 
malevolent wrong clandestinely done, for which the injured 
party might justly demand exemplary redress. 

Matt. xiii. 37 — 43. It is only in the Saviour's explanation 
of the parable we perceive the sublime conception it envelopes. 

The field is the world; the owner of it is the Son of Man. 
His title to it is by Divine constitution and covenant; and coeval 
with its creation. This august Being is the sower. He plants 
in it the family of man — the future subjects of his kingdom. 
Just then, Satan is permitted to enter and usurp his rights. 
The usurpation is not immediately avenged. At the time 
represented in the parable as the seed-time, he sends forth his 
servants, and at the same time Satan, with emulous and perse- 
vering, but malicious industry, plants and nurtures his own 
seed. But at length the season of harvest arrives. It is the 
end of the (aicov) world. The Son of Man appears, assumes 
his right, expels the adversary, destroys his works, and, con- 
trary to expectation, exhibits the products of his own care, in 
beauty and glory, enhanced by the adverse circumstances of 
their culture and growth. Verse 43. 

Will the Lord of the field, when this is done, destroy it, or 
abandon it to eternal waste? Will he be content with a single 
harvest, the product of one short summer? The parable does 
not so teach. Rather, may we not infer, having thrust out 
his adversary, he will thenceforth put it to the uses for which 
it was originally designed — so that seed time and harvest, 
understood in the sense of the parable, shall never fail. Gen. 
viii. 22. Certainly the parable does not compel us to believe 
that the Lord will annihilate the earth at his second coming. 
As little does it encourage the expectation of a millennium of 
universal holiness and purity on earth, before that time. 

The contrast between the humble imagery of the parable, 
and the magnificent ideas and events it represents, may be 
designed to suggest the idea of changes, not less magnificent, 
in the earth itself. Dr. Goodwin, a member of the Westmin- 
ster Assembly of Divines, on Eph. i. 21, says, "As Adam had 
a world made for him, so shall Jesus Christ, the second Adam, 
have a world made for him. This world was not good enough 
for him. He hath a better appointed than that which the 
first Adam had — a new heaven and a new earth, according to 
Isaiah lxv. IT — 25, and lxvi. 22. 

The central idea of the parable is the rightful dominion of 
the Son of Man over the earth, according to the eighth Psalm, 
and his right to use it as he pleases, and to have all it yields. 
Even the works of Satan are his, to do with them and to 



PARABLE OF THE NET CAST INTO THE. SEA. 131 

destroy them when and in whatever manner it may please him. 
Verse 29, 30, 40, 41, 42. 

Matt. xiii. 44, 45. The parables of the hid treasure and 
merchant seeking goodly pearls belong to the category of 
private instruction. See notes on Matt. iv. 17. They were 
privately delivered to the disciples, and are so plain that they 
required no explanation, verse 51. They are called simili- 
tudes of the kingdom, not because they set forth any quality 
of the kingdom itself, or the manner of its coming, but rather 
because they portray the qualities and spirit of those who shall 
be found worthy to enter it. They belong to the same class 
with that of the kino; taking; an account with his servants, 
Matt, xviii. 23 — 35, although the particular lesson they incul- 
cate is different. How strong the contrast between the true 
and sincere seekers of the kingdom and the Jews to whom our 
Lord preached, who thought themselves to be such ! See notes 
on Matt. xi. 12. 

Matt. xiii. 47 — 51. The parable of the net cast into the sea 
also belongs to the category of private instruction, and appears 
to have been especially intended for the apostles. It taught 
them what the result of their labours would be, and coincides 
in this particular with the public parable of the tares of the 
field. The fruits of their labours, however zealous and unre- 
mitted or carefully performed, would not be pure and unmixed 
with evil. The churches they would be sent forth to gather 
and establish, would inevitably contain false as well as faithful 
disciples. No efforts of theirs would or could avail to prevent, 
what the Divine wisdom had seen fit to permit, until the end 
of the dispensation (oiayv) in which they were to be the first 
labourers. Satan, the adversary in the parable of the tares, 
was too vigilant, too subtle, and too strong for them. He 
would mingle his seed with the good, and in process of time, 
if not immediately, make even consecrated hands unconsciously 
scatter it: or, adopting the imagery of the parable we are 
considering, bring vile and worthless fishes within the sweep 
of their nets, and burden their arms with that which must be 
cast away when they reach the shore and their labour is done. 
The separation will then be made by a power and a wisdom 
far greater than their own. See notes on Acts ii. 47. 

Matt. xiii. 52. "Therefore every Scribe instructed unto the 
kingdom is like a householder who bringeth out of his treasury 
things new and old." 

This is a corollary, not from the instruction of any of the 
preceding parables, but from what he had said, verses 11 — 17, 
relative to their privileges, as his disciples, and the benefits 
they should receive therefrom. The verse itself is another 



132 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

similitude, not of the kingdom of heaven, but of the teachers 
the Lord designed to raise up and instruct in its mysteries. 
Such were not the Scribes, who taught the people the law. 
They shut up the kingdom. Matt, xxiii. 13. They were blind 
guides, hypercritical and corrupt. Matt, xxiii. 13 — 33. Nor 
were the disciples such at that time. They had scarcely 
received the first lesson in the mysteries of the kingdom. See 
Matt. xvi. 22; Luke xviii. 34; Mark ix. 10; John xx. 9. 
They understood these parables only in their most superficial 
sense. Hence the form of this instruction was by way of 
parable. It was not applicable to them as they then were ; but 
as they should thereafter be, when the Holy Spirit should unfold 
to them the deep and far-reaching mysteries of the kingdom, 
which had been kept secret from the beginning of the world. 
Rom. xvi. 25. Then indeed would they be like a householder, 
having laid up in his treasury the acquisitions of many years, 
sufficient to meet the constantly occurring and recurring and 
ever-varying wants of his numerous household : — then would 
they have a treasury of Divine knowledge of the works and 
ways of God from the beginning, from which they could bring 
forth whatever might be needful or useful for the instruction, 
comfort, and edification of those they should be sent forth, to 
govern and teach. It is not improbable, the Saviour intended 
to represent himself by the householder, Col. ii. 3, as in him 
were laid up at that time all the treasures of Divine wisdom 
and knowledge out of which they, who were of his household, 
were to be supplied. John xvi. 14. If so, there was a mystery, 
even in this allusion, to the office of the Holy Spirit, whom he 
afterwards promised, in plain language, to send upon them, 
inasmuch as his bringing forth of things new and old from his 
treasure of Divine wisdom and knowledge for their use, was to 
be done through the agency of the Holy Spirit. 

Matt. xiii. 58. " And he did not many mighty works there, 
because of their unbelief." Mark, vi. 5, adds, "save that he 
laid his hands on a few sick folk and healed them." 

The miracles which he performed, according to Mark, were 
performed, as we suppose, without solicitation, in proof of his 
proclamation of the kingdom. They were, if we may so express 
it, official acts attesting his authority as preacher of the king- 
dom. The miracles which he did not, or, as Mark expresses it, 
could not, perform, were miracles of faith or miracles to be 
wrought through faith as a medium for the transmission of his 
Divine energies and powers ; according to the distinction before 
taken. See notes on Matt. viii. 2, 3. In no other way can we 
explain the language of Mark consistently with the infinite pleni- 
tude of the Saviour's power. The defect was not in him, but in 
the people of his own country. Verse 54. 



133 



CHAPTER IV. 

Herod's Imprisonment of John. — John's Death. — Christ's Preaching after John's 
Death. — Christ's Miracle of multiplying bread. — Christ Walks on the Sea. — 
Christ's power over Nature. — Peter's attempt to walk on the Sea. — The 
Apostles acknowledge Christ as the Son of Cod. — Christ's Journey towards 
Tyre. — He again multiplies bread. — The False Doctrine of the Pharisees. — 
Christ as the Son of Man. — Peter's Confession of Christ. — The Keys given to 
Peter. — Our Lord's names. Jesus and Christ. — Christ's rebuke of Peter — The 
ralue of the Soul. — Christ's title, the Son of Man. — The Transfiguration. 

Matthew xiv. 1, 2. "At that time Herod the Tetrarch heard 
of the fame of Jesus. And he said to his servants : This is 
John the Baptist. He has risen from the dead, and therefore 
mighty works do show forth themselves in him." Mark vi. 
14—16; Lukeix. 7—9. 

Although our Lord's country was Galilee, which was within 
Herod's jurisdiction, it is evident from Luke xxiii. 8, that 
Herod never saw him until the day of his crucifixion. Yet as 
he went about all Galilee, preaching in the synagogues, and 
performing miracles, Matt. iv. 23 — 25, during John's imprison- 
ment, we naturally inquire how it happened that Herod had 
not heard of him before. The Evangelists, though they all 
concur in the fact, do not explain it. Some learned men sup- 
pose that Herod had been absent from his tetrarchy, Lukeiii. 1, 
during this part of our Lord's public ministry, and did not 
return until about that time. If this be the true explanation, 
it accounts sufficiently for John's being allowed by Herod to 
remain in prison during so long a time, without any further 
proceeding against him. But however this may be, the united 
testimony of the three Evangelists leaves no room to doubt the 
fact. Herod was well acquainted with Jewish opinions, and no 
doubt had the same idea of the resurrection of the body which 
the people had. He appears to have attached the idea of per- 
sonal identity to the body, as well as the soul of the Baptist, 
and must have supposed, therefore, that the severed head which 
had been delivered to Herodias, perhaps in his presence, had 
been brought back to the rest of the body, and united to it in 
some miraculous way. 

It is more important to observe, that this extraordinary way 
of accounting for our Lord's miracles shows conclusively that 
Herod did not doubt in the least the accounts he had received. 
The evidence must have been incontestable, or he would not 
have imagined a greater miracle, as the most reasonable way 
of accounting for them. We may regard, then, these verses, as 
Herod the Tetrarch's testimony to the truth and reality of the 



134 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

miraculous works of Jesus ; and in that view the Evangelist 
appears to have introduced his saying in this place. Perhaps 
he also meant to set in contrast the reasonings and belief of 
this wicked man (whose chief distinctions were those of infamy 
and sin, see notes on Luke xxiii. 8,) with the blasphemous 
insinuations of the self-righteous Pharisees. Matt. ix. 34; xii. 
24. Regarded, however, as the testimony of the Tetrarch, 
who had the means of investigation at his command, to the 
truth of our Lord's miracles, the argument deducible from it, 
is analogous to that derived from the conduct of Herod the 
king. See notes on Matt. ii. 

It may be remarked, also, that these verses conclude the 
first, or what we have called the argumentative, part of this 
Gospel. The Harmonists have shown, that from the fourth to 
the fourteenth chapter, the narrative does not follow the order 
of time, see Whistons Short View of the Harmony of the 
Four Evangelists, pp. 100 — 103, and Le Clercs Harmony 
Dissert., 2 can. i., while the remainder of it does so, very 
nearly. Whiston maintains that the matters contained in these 
chapters have been misplaced — that originally they stood in 
much the same order as they do in Mark; whose Gospel he 
regards, erroneously, we think, as an epitome of this. The 
view which we have taken is, that an orderly plan is pursued in 
the first fourteen chapters of this Gospel as they now stand; 
but it is the plan of an argument. See notes on Matt. i. 1. If 
such a plan is discernible, it is a moral demonstration that we 
have this Gospel in the order in which it was written. How 
far this hypothesis is supported by the preceding notes is left 
to the judgment of the reader. Whatever precedes the death 
of John the Baptist, relates to our Lord's mission to that people 
as the Messiah or Christ. All that follows the death of John 
the Baptist, relates to his mission to the people as individuals, 
as Saviour and Son of Man. In respect to his mission as 
Christ, the appeal was national. Judgments were pronounced 
against cities and communities as such ; whereas, when he 
entered upon his further mission as Son of Man, and Saviour, 
his appeal was made to individuals, as many as would come to 
him — according to John i. 11, 12. 

Matt. xiv. 3. " For Herod had laid hold on John and 
bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his bro- 
ther Philip's wife." 

The Evangelist had before alluded to the imprisonment of 
John the Baptist, but without mentioning the cause or any of 
the circumstances of it, iv. 12. This was necessary, to mark 
precisely the commencement of our Lord's public ministry. 
See notes on Matt. iv. 12 — 17. Now he relates the cause of the 



john's imprisonment and death. 135 

imprisonment and the termination of it by way of introduction 
to the narrative which is to follow ; for having mentioned the 
death and burial of John, he takes up the history from that 
time onward, very nearly in the order of time. 

Matt. xiv. 4, 5. " For John said unto him it is not lawful 
for thee to have her, and when he would have put him to 
death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a 
prophet." 

John the Baptist was an authorized and an authoritative 
teacher of the law, to which Herod and Herodias were subject. 
In this he was superior to the apostles at that time. Matt, xxiii. 
3 ; and see notes on Matt. iii. 1, 2. His influence with the 
people may be judged of by the fears of Herod. Impelled by 
passion and the instigation of Herodias, his intention was to 
put him to death, but his fears restrained him at the moment. 
This was a providential expedient for the preservation of John. 
And if we may suppose, that soon after imprisoning John, he 
went to Rome, and was detained there by public affairs, we 
should regard his absence as another providential expedient for 
the same purpose. If to this we may add, that he put John to 
death soon after his return, we reasonably account for his not 
having heard of the miracles of the Lord Jesus until after that 
event, and for his extraordinary conjecture that he was John 
the Baptist risen from the dead. 

Matt. xiv. 6 — 9. " But when Herod's birth-day was kept, 
the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased 
Herod ; whereupon he promised with an oath to give her what- 
soever she would ask. And she being before instructed of her 
mother, said : Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger. 
And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's sake, 
and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be 
given her." 

These verses give us a glimpse of the festivities of the great 
men of that day, and may remind the reader of a similar cruelty 
of one of the kings of Egypt. Gen xl. 19, 20. As the influence 
of Herodias secured the imprisonment of John — which we have 
seen was the event upon which the commencement of our Lord's 
public ministry was suspended, see notes on Matt. iv. 12 — 17 
— so it was her influence which occasioned his death ; which, as 
we shall see, was another epoch in the trial of the nation. 
Strange that such great things should depend upon the malice 
and cunning of such a woman. That her influence over Herod, 
her uncle, see notes on Luke xxiii. 8, was very great, is proved 
by a passage in Josephus, (Antiq. book xviii. chap, vii.,) where 
he records an instance of her pertinacity and of Herod's yield- 
ing to her, against his will and better judgment, as it proved to 



136 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

be, in a measure which resulted in the loss of his tetrarchy, and 
banishment to Lyons. That her influence was not sufficient to 
procure the death instead of the imprisonment of John upon 
his first arrest, is to be ascribed to the special providence of 
God, whose designs of mercy to the nation, and of judgment, 
required the preservation of his life for a time. See notes on 
Luke iii. 20, 21. But when those designs were accomplished, 
providential restraints were withdrawn ; Herod was given up 
to the evil influences by which he was surrounded, and the 
carousals of his birth-day, his rash and wicked oath, by which 
he put himself in the power of a giddy girl, became the occa- 
sion of John's death. This was the first seal put upon the 
nation's doom. 

Matt. xiv. 10. "And he sent and beheaded John in the 
prison." 

According to Lightfoot, Harm. § 46, John was beheaded a 
little before the time of the passover, A. D. 32. He founds 
this opinion, in part, upon John vi. 6. John began his ministry 
about three years before — that is, about'the time of the feast 
of the passover, A. D. 29, and he was imprisoned about the 
month of October in the year following, i. e. A. r>. 30, so that 
" his story is of three years' space, the better half of which he 
preached at liberty, and the other half he lay in prison." 

Consequently our Lord had been preaching about a year and 
a half when John was beheaded. During this time he commis- 
sioned the twelve apostles, and sent them forth to preach the 
kingdom, from which mission they returned at or about the 
time of the death of John. Mark vi. 30. See Lightfoot, 
Harm. §47. It does not appear that he sent the twelve forth 
again upon a similar mission during his public ministry. Their 
second mission followed his resurrection and ascension. 

However this may be, the death of John the Baptist was the 
crisis of the nation's trial. While John lived, it was, in one 
sense, in the power of the nation to receive him; at least, he was 
in the midst of them to be received. Now it was too late, unless 
God would raise him from the dead, as Herod imagined he had, 
and send him to them again. See Acts iii. 20. Having rejected 
John, they could not nationally receive Jesus ; for, according 
to the Divine plan, both must be nationally received, or both 
nationally rejected. The personal ministry of each was insep- 
arably connected with the personal ministry of the other, so far 
as the nation, as such, was concerned, so as to constitute one 
great moral trial, and to issue in the same result. Hence our 
Lord not only joined his ministry with John's, (Matt. iii. 15, 
and see notes,) but applied the predictions of the prophets con- 
cerning his sufferings and death to John. Mark ix. 12, 13. 



Christ's preaching after john's death. 137 

Each bore the strongest testimony to the other, to prevent, if 
possible, the rejection of either by the nation. See notes on 
Luke iii. 20, 21. But the time allowed for their change of 
mind, in respect to John, expired at his death ; and from that 
time onward we observe an important change in our Lord's 
public and private discourses and miracles,* which we account 

* The correctness of this remark, which is very important, -will appear as 
•we proceed. At present it may be sufficient to say, that the public miracles 
of our Lord, before the death of John, were miracles of healing, of raising 
the dead, and casting out devils. The miracle of multiplying food was not 
performed till after that event, and, as we shall see, for a particular end. As 
to his instructions to his disciples, it was not till after the death of John he 
spoke plainly of his sufferings, death, and resurrection. Matt. xvi. 21. As 
examples of his public instruction of the people before the death of John, the 
reader may be refered to the sermon on the mount, Matt. v. vi. vii. chaps., 
and his public parables in Matt, xiii., the great themes of which are the law 
of the kingdom he preached and the manner of its coming. To these we may 
add his public discourse at Jerusalem, in John chap, v., the leading design of 
which was to vindicate his authority as Son of Man and Lord of the Sabbath- 
day. See notes on Matt. xii. 8. As an example of his public teaching after 
the death of John the Baptist, we may refer to the discourse in John vi. 26 — 52, 
delivered at Capernaum shortly after his first miracle of multiplying bread, 
while the impression it made was fresh upon the minds of the people. John 
vi. 26. In this discourse he does not appear as a preacher of the kingdom, 
urging it upon them in their national capacity, but as the Son of Man, having 
power to save and give eternal life to as many as would individually receive 
him. John i. 12. Taking the miracle he had just performed as his theme or 
text, he discourses about himself as the true bread. He told them the bread 
with which he had just before miraculously fed them to satiety, was not the 
bread of heaven, though it was the product of his heavenly powers. It was 
perishable food, verse 27. Nor was the bread that Moses gave their fathers 
the bread of heaven, verse 32. That also was perishable food. Exod. xvi. 19, 20. 
The bread of God is the Son of Man, who came down from heaven to give 
his life for the world, verses 27, 33, 48 — 51, of which the bread of the miracle 
and the bread Moses had given their fathers, were mere symbols. Here we 
observe a plain allusion to his death, which presupposed his rejection as Mes- 
siah by the nation, now made sure to enlightened human judgment by the 
rejection of John. We observe also an obscure allusion to his elect people of 
grace, verses 39, 44, which presupposed the rejection of Israel, according to 
the flesh, as the elect people or nation. We notice also, that the appeal to his 
hearers is personal throughout, as individuals, not collectively, as a part of the 
nation and representing it. This change of address was a consequence of 
the new posture which the nation took at the death of John. Though the 
kingdom was not actually withdrawn or taken away from them until the 
close of his ministry, (or after it, as has been suggested in the notes on 
Acts iii. 19, 21; see Matt. xxi. 43; Luke xvii. 21; x. 9,) yet it was no longer 
preached, as at the beginning of the Lord's public ministry, and urged upon 
the people for national acceptance, according to the view taken in, the notes 
on Matthew xi. 12 ; but instead, the Saviour's public discourses and miracles 
were designed, as before remarked, to prove that he was the Son of Man, 
sent into the world by the Father, and that he had power to save all, whether 
few or many, who would receive him with the obedience of faith. This dis- 
course, and those in the vii. viii. and x. chapters, do not therefore properly 
belong to his office as a preacher of the kingdom or preacher of the law, but 
to his office or relation to the world as Son of Man and Saviour. But what 
we wish the reader especially to consider is, that this change in our Lord's 
public instruction of the people took place at the death of John the Baptist, 

18 



. 138 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

for by the new posture of the nation in the sense just explained. 
The Evangelist appears to have regarded the death of John in 
this light, for he makes it the beginning of a new series of nar- 
rations, in which he pursues, as Mark and Luke do throughout 
their Gospels,- very nearly the order of time. 

Matt. xiv. 13. "When Jesus heard of it [viz. the death of 
John,] he departed thence by ship to a desert place; and when 
the people heard [thereof] they followed him on foot out of the 
cities." 

The Saviour no doubt knew of the death of John before he 
was informed of it by John's disciples. He was at that time at 
Nazareth, xiii. 54, whence he departed to. preach the gospel of 
the kingdom, upon the imprisonment of John, iv. 17. The news 
in both instances, it is probable, was carried to him from the 
prison or fortress of Machaerus,* situated at the east of Jericho 
and the river Jordan, upon a small stream which enters into the 
Dead Sea from the north-east, which was at a considerable dis- 
tance from Nazareth. The point to be especially noticed is that 
dividing our Lord's public ministry into two portions, as before 
suggested, the beginning of each is from Nazareth. 

Perhaps it was in order to gain occasion for a new and very 
different display of his miraculous powers, John vi. 6, our Lord 
retired by ship to a desert place, whither he knew he would be 
followed by multitudes from the cities, without making adequate 
provision for their wants, attracted by his healing power, as we 
may infer from the 14th verse. The disciples perceiving their 
destitute condition, proposed, after their sick had been healed, 
to send them away in order that they might buy food for them- 
selves. 

Matt. xiv. 16. "But Jesus said unto them, They need not 
depart, give ye them to eat." 

This command of the Saviour must have struck the disciples 
with great surprise. They knew how scanty their own supply 

which shows the significancy and the importance of that event. It proves, we 
submit, that at John's death the trial of the nation, as such, was virtually- 
ended, and that the drift, if we may so express it, of the Saviour's public 
instructions from that time onward, was to make or increase the number of his 
disciples, not to preach the kingdom in order to its acceptance by the nation 
in its collective capacity. Hence, at his final entry into Jerusalem, Luke xix. 
41, 44, and* at his final departure from the temple, Matt xxiii. 37 — 39, he 
spoke of the nation's visitation and trial as already past, although he was yet 
in their midst, and the formal act of rejecting him before Pilate was yet to be 
performed. See notes on John xix. 15. For the nation's trial was in effect, 
though not formally, closed when Herod beheaded John. 

* It is supposed by some that it was at this place Herod celebrated his birth- 
day, where he had collected an army against Aretas, whos-: daughter he had 
married, and had repudiated for Herodias' sake. See Grotius in loco. Josephus, 
Antiq., lib. xviii. chap. 5. Cradock, Harm., \ xxvii. 



CHRIST'S MIRACLE OF MULTIPLYING BREAD. 139 

was, and the impossibility of buying sufficient food in such a 
place for so large a company. How then could they obey this 
extraordinary command ? John vi. 5 — 9. The display of power 
which the Saviour intended to make, was one of which they had 
no conception ; it was a new revelation of his character to them, 
as well as to the multitudes, who had fewer and less favourable 
opportunities of observing it. 

Matt. xiv. 17. "And they say unto him, We have but five 
loaves and two fishes." 

John, who is a little more particular, informs us, that the 
loaves and fishes were not of their own supplies, but belonged 
to a lad {Tzoibo.ptov, a boy) in the company; and he adds an 
expression of Andrew's, which shows that he thought them of 
no account for such a purpose: "But what are they among so 
many?" John vi. 7, 9. 

Matt. xiv. 18 — 21. "He said, Bring them hither to me. . . . 
And he took the five loaves and the two fishes, and looking up 
to [towards] heaven, he blessed and brake and gave the loaves 
to the disciples, and the disciples to the multitude, and they did 
all eat and were filled; and they took up of the fragments that 
remained twelve baskets full. And they that had eaten were 
about five thousand men, besides women and children." 

This first miracle of the kind, is recorded by the four Evan- 
gelists: Mark vi. 37—44; Luke ix. 13—17; John vi. 5—13. 
It gave occasion to a public discourse, soon after, at Capernaum, 
which none of the Evangelists, except John, has recorded. 
John vi. 26 — 52 ; see foot note on p. 137. One other miracle 
of the same kind was performed soon after, near the Sea of 
Galilee, Matt. xv. 32—39 ; Mark viii. 1—9 ; but of this neither 
Luke nor John take notice. The first of these miracles, we may 
presume, was performed for the purpose of public instruction, 
as we find our Lord made it the foundation, or as we may say, 
the text of an earnest, searching public discourse, in the syna- 
gogue at Capernaum, John vi. 59, and 22 — 24, the effect of 
which was to diminish very much the number of his professed 
disciples. John vi. 66. The particular use our Lord made of 
the second of these miracles and of the difference between them, 
we shall have occasion to notice hereafter. See Matt. xvi. 8 — 12; 
Mark viii. 16—21. 

In this place, it is pertinent to remark, that this kind of 
miracle is not mentioned in the answer our Lord sent to John 
the Baptist. Matt. xi. 6. Nor is there any express prophecy 
in the Hebrew Scriptures, that Messiah should perform such 
miracles. It is also important to be borne in mind, that no such 
miracle was performed before the death of John the Baptist, 
by which event the posture of the nation as such, it has been 



140 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

remarked, was materially changed. See the note on verse 10. 
Hence we infer, that this kind of miracle does not so properly 
belong to the Messianic office of our Lord, as to his Adamic 
character or relations, and thus he applied it to himself in the 
discourse at Capernaum, before referred to. John yi. 27, 48, 53. 

This miracle appears to have impressed the popular mind 
more strongly than any which he had previously performed. 
This is proved from the resolution of the people, on that occa- 
sion, to make him a king by force, John vi. 15, which he 
frustrated by retirement. The reasons why such an act could 
not be permitted are obvious. The nation had rejected John 
the Baptist and the appointed evidence of our Lord's Messiah- 
ship, John xi. 8, upon which they were bound to receive 
him, with the obedience of the heart, and they could not after- 
wards be allowed to recognize his regal rights, upon other 
evidence, especially under the promptings of unholy and selfish 
motives. John vi. 26. 

But it is more important to our present purpose to observe, 
that this miracle was an exercise of our Lord's Aclamic power, 
or of his power as Son of Man, with which he was invested 
from the beginning, according to the declaration of David. 
Ps. viii. 6. In this character, we have seen, he was the. Lord 
of the world. All the powers of nature were obedient to his 
will. At his bidding, the earth produced all he required, and 
as he required, without stint or limit. Water became wine by 
his will. John ii. 1 — 10. A single loaf, a single grain, became 
a full supply for myriads of men. Philosophically considered, 
the miracle authorizes the conclusion that the Saviour's, power 
over nature was absolutely without bounds : for he that could 
make five small loaves suffice for five thousand men, and leave 
a surplus greater than the original quantity, could with equal 
ease make one loaf suffice for a thousand times that number, 
because nothing short of unlimited power over physical nature 
could do either, and such power can produce whatever may be 
required, from little or much, at will.* 

On this principle our Lord reasoned with his disciples on a 

* It is instructive to consider the argument our Lord deduced from this 
miracle. John vi. 26 — 58. It proved his power to produce, at will, suitable 
aliment for their bodies. Hence he argued, that he himself, who had that power, 
was the true bread, that word being understood in its literal and proper sense : 
and as he had shown them his power to provide food for their fainting bodies, 
they ought to believe he was able to supply, with equal ease, their spiritual 
natures, with the bread or sustenance they needed. Ashe called himself bread, 
because the miracle proved his power to produce it ; he also called himself 
the bread of life, because the miracle was a sufficient warrant for them to 
believe that he could produce the (bread) aliment their souls required to sus- 
tain in them (undying) immortal life. It is on the ground of this figurative, or 
emblematical representation of himself as bread, that he spoke of the hearty 



CHRIST WALKS ON THE SEA. 141 

later occasion, Matt. xvi. 8 — 11, as we shall notice particularly 
hereafter. 

Matt. xiv. 22 — 33. Jesus walks on the sea. 

The miracle recorded in these verses was another exercise of 
our Lord's Adamic power. It differs, in its order or class, in one 
respect, from that last mentioned, inasmuch as it was exhibited 
only to his disciples, and of course belongs to the category of 
private instruction. See notes on Matt. iv. 17 ; viii. 23 — 27. 
That there was a design in concealing it from the public may 
be inferred from John vi. 25, where we find that the people, not 
being able to account for his being so soon on the other side of 
the sea, desired him to tell them how he came there, which he 
tacitly declined. John vi. 25, 26. Luke omits this miracle 
entirely, but Mark, vi. 46 — 52, and John, vi. 16 — 21, record it, 
with some variation of circumstances and language, which it 
is proper to notice. 

According to Matthew and Mark, the boat was in the midst 
of the sea, but according to John it was twenty-five or thirty 
furlongs, or between three and four miles from the land, when 
Jesus overtook them. Neither of the Evangelists, however, 
expressly affirms that he passed over all that distance by walk- 
ing on the surface of the water. Nor do we suppose it necessary 
to assume that he did so. His power as Son of Man, which he 
more strikingly exhibited after his resurrection, enabled him to 
approach them in whatever way, and with whatever rapidity he 
chose ; but when the disciples first saw him approaching their 
boat, he was walking on the sea. Both Mark and John omit 
to mention Peter's adventurous request and his rescue, Matt, 
xiv. 28 — 31 ; and Matthew and Mark take no notice of another 
miracle, which John records in a single line, viz. the rapid, if 
not instantaneous, transit of the boat to the land whither they 

reception of him by faith, as an eating of his flesh and drinking his blood. 
Verses 53 — 56. In these expressions he maintains the figure in part, and 
drops it in part. Bread is eaten, that it may give nourishment. Accordingly, 
he maintains this part of the figure, that of eating, but drops the other, when 
he speaks of eating his flesh. The sense is the same as if he had said, " He 
that eateth this bread of life," meaning himself, "hath eternal life." This 
partial retaining and change of the figure offended his hearers, verse 52, and 
it was no doubt designedly made, to test the character of some of his professed 
followers, verses 60 — 65, though he told them, very distinctly, that his lan- 
guage was to be understood in a figurative or emblematical sense, verse 63, as 
indeed the whole structure of it, and the miracle which gave occasion to it, 
showed. If we invert the proposition in the 56th verse, we get the best 
commentary that can be made upon it. " He that dwelleth in me,'.' that is, 
heartily receives me, " and I in him," by being so received, " he " it is, that 
" eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood." 

The Romish doctrine of transubstantiation rests mainly upon a misinterpre- 
tation of this discourse, founded upon this first miracle of our Lord after the 
death of John. 



142 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

went, upon their receiving Jesus into it. John vi. 21. This 
miracle, if we duly consider it, is strikingly illustrative of the 
Saviour's power over nature. Mark adds a reflection, vi. 52, 
upon the whole matter, which enables us to assign these mira- 
cles to the same and their proper category: "They (the disci- 
ples) considered not the miracle of the loaves" which they had 
just before witnessed. 

This miracle of the loaves is referred to, as we conceive, 
because it was of the same order or class. They had witnessed 
many, if not all, our Lord's public miracles — the healing of the 
sick, the cleansing of lepers, the raising of the dead, the restora- 
tion of sight to the blind, of hearing to the deaf, of strength and 
soundness to the lame and palsied — his power over demons, 
which they themselves also had exercised in his name; yet 
these the Evangelist does not refer to, but only to the miracle 
of the loaves. It was easy, and would have been natural for 
him, to say they considered not his many miracles, John xii. 37, 
had there not been a peculiar propriety in referring especially 
to the miracle of the loaves. The miracles of healing belonged 
to the Messianic office of our Lord; but the miracle of the 
loaves, like his other miracles of power over physical nature, 
was an exercise of his powers and prerogatives as Son of Man, 
and not included in his Messianic office. 

Upon this miracle, then, we may reason as we did upon that 
last noticed. The inherent power of his nature as Son of Man, 
by which he performed it, would have enabled him to walk upon 
the winds, or the clouds, with equal ease, had he chosen to do 
so, Ps. civ. 3; Prov. xxx. 4; viii. 28, 30; for nothing less than 
an absolute control over physical nature is sufficient for either. 
This power, as before suggested, he frequently and most won- 
derfully manifested to his disciples after his resurrection, but 
only in stinted measures before. As this view of the matter 
may strike the reader as uncommon, if not quite new and 
questionable, we desire to add a few considerations in support 
of it. 

Our Lord's intercourse with his disciples after his resur- 
rection is justly regarded as profoundly mysterious; and yet 
his approach to them on this occasion was not less so. We per- 
ceive this the moment we attempt to explain it. His apparently 
casual approach to the disciples going to Emmaus, his sudden 
disappearance from them, and his reappearance to them and 
their companions the same evening at Jerusalem, Luke xxiv. 
13 — 36, were not the exercise of newly acquired powers, but a 
different or larger exercise of the powers which he possessed 
from the heginning as Son of man. See notes on Matt. viii. 24. 
The difference in the manner of his intercourse with them before 



CHRIST'S INTERCOURSE WITH HIS DISCIPLES. 143 

and after his resurrection is to be accounted for by the libera- 
tion or enlargement of the powers he always inherently pos- 
sessed, from the confinement or restraint put upon them by the 
Divine plan which he came into the world to execute. See notes 
on Acts ii. That plan required him in his intercourse with the 
people, and for the most part with his disciples also, to conform 
himself to the ways of our frail and feeble humanity; and very 
seldom did he depart from it in public ; see Luke iv. 30, John viii. 
59, and notes on Matt. ii. 12, 13, or even privately in his inter- 
course with his disciples ; and then only for their special instruc- 
tion, Matt, viii. 23, 27; xiv. 25, 32 ; Mark vi. 48 ; John vi. 19 ; 
or for the instruction of a part of them. Matt. xvii. 1, 2; Mark 
ix. 2 ; Luke ix. 29. During the whole of his public ministry he 
restrained the mighty powers within him ; contracting them, so 
to speak, to the puny measures of our fallen humanity ; be- 
cause, as Son of Man, he could do nothing of himself (that is, 
he could not give scope and action to his powers) beyond the 
works the Father had given him to do (or exhibit). John v. 19, 
30, 36. The class of miracles we are considering were per- 
mitted, as transient or momentary exhibitions of his majestic 
nature, see 2 Pet. i. 16, 17, in the manner, and to the extent, 
in which they were performed, for special purposes ; and are 
to be" reckoned as exceptions to the habitual restraint or con- 
straint to which he had voluntarily submitted. At his resurrec- 
tion he cast off this restraint in a great measure, as the manner 
of his appearing to his disciples and departing from them 
proves, and at his glorification he was wholly and completely 
enlarged from it. See notes on Luke xxiv. 38, 39, and Acts ii. 

According to this view, what we commonly consider the 
natural side of our Lord's character, was really the miraculous 
side ; and what we consider the miraculous side, was but the 
natural outward actings of his glorious humanity, as Son of 
Man, and Lord of the world. Nor must we forget that his 
Divine nature as Son of God was in hypostatic union with his 
Adamic and fleshly nature, and this consideration enforces the 
view we have taken, because in his Divine nature the restraint 
of his powers only, and not the exertion of them in mighty 
works, can be accounted miraculous. 

Matt. xiv. 28. "And Peter answered him and said, If it be 
thou, bid me come to thee upon the waters." 

If Peter had any doubt whether it was Jesus whom he then 
saw, and thus addressed, he proposed a most extraordinary 
expedient to remove it. But the conduct of Peter shows that 
he had no doubt whatever on that matter. He knew it was 
Jesus, and this new exhibition of his Lord's miraculous powers 
prompted his request. The words of the original admit, per- 



144 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

haps, of a different turn from that given them in our trans- 
lation : "Is it thou? — bid me come to thee upon the waters." 
We may regard the words el ou el, "is it thou," as words of 
recognition and surprise, not as implying doubt. He was con- 
fident it was Jesus, and that he could enable him to do what 
he was doing, and in this confidence he made the request.* 

Matt. xiv. 29. "And he said, Come. And when Peter 
was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water to go 
to Jesus. 

So far as we know, this is the only instance in which any of 
the disciples attempted a miracle of this nature ; and this we 
suppose was the Evangelist's reason for recording it. Peter was 
naturally courageous and impulsive, and consequently some- 
times inconsiderate, and this passage among others, is cited to 
show that such was his character. But that, we suppose, is not 
the instruction the record was intended to convey. The chief 
lesson is the power of perfect faith — that is, faith without fear 
or doubt — to perform acts or works like these, as the following 
verses prove : 

Matt. xiv. 30, 31. " But when he saw the wind was boiste- 
rous, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, Lord, 
save me ! And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand and 
caught him, and said unto him, thou of little faith, wherefore 
didst thou doubt? " 

Peter failed in his attempt, not because he was impulsive, 
or inconsiderate, but for want of faith; he was afraid. He 
doubted or wavered in his mind, whether he could do what he 
was attempting, by the command and approbation of Jesus ; 
and that marred his faith. What the Saviour said to Peter 
after his rescue, was an assurance to him that perfect faith or 
trust, without fear of consequences or doubt of success, would 
have enabled him to do what he had attempted, which amounts 
to this, that perfect faith in Jesus is a power superior by Divine 
constitution to physical laws: and this agrees with what the 
Lord taught his disciples most explicitly on other occasions. 
He told them that if they had such faith, even in its seed (that 
is undeveloped) form (as it must necessarily be in this life),")" 

* The use of the imperative, KZ\ivo-ov jui, shows, according to the laws of lan- 
guage, as well as the instincts of human nature, that Peter viewed the condi- 
tion (ii cru ii) as actual ; that is, as expressing the real fact — not merely as 
probable. If he had supposed it as only probable, that the person he addressed 
was Jesus, or if he had had no definite notion about it, the use of the impera- 
tive would have shown greater inconsiderateness than we can impute even to 
Peter, namely, his readiness to hazard his life upon a doubt: nor could he 
have made the request in any form, or under any condition, without risking 
life on the truthfulness and power of an unknown or doubtful person or spirit. 

f Or, perhaps the allusion may be to purity or homogeneity, freedom from 
mixture or alloy with anything of another nature, as a mustard seed is. 



THE APOSTLES' POWER TO PERFORM MIRACLES. 145 

nothing would be impossible to them, Matt. xvii. 20 ; Luke xvii. 
6, and the examples he gave them of the power of faith, prove 
its superiority to physical laws. The Lord's remark on this 
occasion shows us, that we are to understand such promises or 
assurances literally ; not in a figurative or hyperbolical sense, 
or as intended merely to represent strongly and impressively 
the moral power of faith. Matt. xvii. 20 ; xxi. 21 ; Mark xi. 
23; Luke xvii. 6; notes on Matt. viii. 2, 3. The verse under 
consideration, then, is important as furnishing a rule of inter- 
pretation; and for that purpose chiefly, we suppose, it was 
recorded. It teaches us in what sense we are to understand 
the Saviour's language in like cases. 

The power conferred upon the apostles when they were sent 
forth to preach the kingdom, Matt. x. 1 — 8, did not extend to 
miracles of this nature. Nor do we know that they performed 
miracles of any kind after the death of John the Baptist, until 
they were endowed with fresh powers by the descent of the 
Holy Spirit after our Lord's ascension. For reasons already 
suggested, (Matt. xiv. 3 — 12, note,) we presume they did not, 
at least in virtue of their commission to preach the kingdom. 
If this be so, it was only by the power of faith they were able, 
after the death of John and their return from their first mis- 
sion, to perform a miracle, Matt. xvii. 16 — 20, even of the 
kinds which their commission embraced. These were miracles 
of the first and third classes before mentioned. Notes, Matt. 
iv. 23, 24 ; x. 1. Peter's attempt to walk upon the water, and 
his partial success, were the nearest approximation to a miracle 
of a different order or nature, made by any of the apostles. 
But the faith requisite for such miracles is not designed for the 
holiest and best of men in this life. Fear and doubt are 
instinctively and inseparably incident to our fallen or mortal 
condition. They constitute, in part, the bondage, Heb. ii. 14, 
15, from which we are to be delivered, when the body shall be 
redeemed, Rom. viii. 23; Luke xxi. 28, exalted and glorified. 
1 Cor. ix. 27 ; xiii. 2. Then perfect faith (or call it assurance 
or confidence) will take the place of doubt and fear. The 
believer will no longer know in part, but perfection having 
come, all the frailties of his fallen nature will be done away. 
1 Cor. xiii. 9 — 12. For it is one of the inconceivably great 
and glorious purposes of redemption to raise up and construct 
out of the fallen race of Adam, a new order of manhood by a 
genealogy derived from the Second Adam — the Adam of glory, 
the Man of God's right hand, Ps. lxxx. 17, in whom the attri- 
butes of dominion and power described by David, Ps. viii. 6, 
and the large promises of the Saviour shall be fully and literally 
realized. Rev. iii. 21; John xvii. 23, 24. 
19 



146 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Matt. XIV. 32. " And when they were come into the ship 
the wind ceased." John adds, vi. 21, "and immediately the 
ship was at the land whither they went." 

Two other miracles of power over nature, and, as it seems, 
silently wrought. It is not said that he rebuked the winds 
audibly, as on a former occasion, Matt. viii. 26, notes, and the 
rapid, noiseless transit of the vessel from the middle of the sea 
to the place of their destination, after the wind had ceased, 
without their toiling and rowing, was itself a most amazing 
effect of his power as Son of Man. 

Matt. xiv. 33. " Then they which were in the ship came 
and worshipped him ; saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of 
God." 

Some commentators suppose that these words (ol de ev to 
tlXocoj) "they which were in the ship" include mariners besides 
the disciples ; because the word " disciples" is commonly used, 
when none else are meant. And to account for these mariners 
joining in an ascription of a Divine nature to the Lord Jesus, 
Dr. Bloomfield supposes that the disciples would be likely to 
impart to the mariners the information that they had heard 
him claim to be the Son of God. It is much more probable, 
however, that none but the chosen disciples were in the vessel, 
because none but the disciples are spoken of in verse 22, where 
it is said that Jesus constrained his disciples to get into the ship 
and go before him, and that they were gone away alone. By 
occupation four of the apostles, at least, were fishermen, and 
competent as mariners to navigate the lake. John, vi. 19, 
represents the disciples as rowing ; and Mark, vi. 48, as toiling 
in rowing. Besides the article (to) the, verse 22, indicates that 
it was the ship or boat which was commonly used by the disci- 
ples, and perhaps kept especially for their use. But the chief 
reason is derived from the nature of the miracle itself. It was 
one of those extraordinary acts of power, which none but the 
disciples were permitted to witness. See notes on Matt. viii. 
23 — 27. The miracle was a part of the private instruction or 
discipline of the apostles, designed to qualify them for the 
offices to which they had been chosen. As to the reason first 
above suggested, that the word "disciples" is commonly used, 
when none other are meant, it is sufficient to say, that the word 
" disciples" would have included Peter, whereas the intention 
of the Evangelist was to exclude Peter from the observation he 
made. Consider the circumstances : the Saviour had caught 
Peter when beginning to sink, and had brought him to the 
vessel. They entered it together, (xai ijuftapTcov auTcou,) verse 
32. The other disciples, who remained in the ship, (of de iu toj 
nkocoj) coming forward to meet the Saviour by whose side Peter 



APOSTLES ACKNOWLEDGE CHRIST AS THE SON OF GOD. 147 

was standing, (npooexowjoav aurco,) worshipped him and said : 
"Truly thou art the Son of God." His saving Peter from 
sinking, and bringing him into the vessel again, in the manner 
they had witnessed, walking by his side as on solid ground, was 
in itself another miracle, which served to increase their amaze- 
ment. 

As to their expression, " Of a truth thou art the Son of 
God" — 'AhjOax; deoo olo^ si — the article, though it appears in 
our translation, is not in the original. The expression is dif- 
ferent in this respect from Peter's in Matt. xvi. 16, (6 oloq too 
Osoo too ^lovtoc) "the Son of the living God." On the occa- 
sion of Peter's confession, the Saviour blessed him, adding that 
he had declared a truth which flesh and blood had not revealed 
to him, but the Father. Matt. xvi. 17. He pronounced no such 
blessing on this occasion, nor did he intimate that they had 
confessed him to be the Son of God by inspiration. There 
must, therefore, be a difference in the two expressions, or in 
the sense in which they were uttered: for if the expressions are 
equivalent, and if they were uttered in the same sense, we 
cannot account for the different manner in which they were 
received by the Saviour. Notwithstanding, therefore, all that 
Bishop Middleton or any one else has proved concerning the use 
or omission of the Greek article in the New Testament, we cannot 
understand the expression of the disciples on this occasion as 
a confession of the Deity of the Lord Jesus, which Peter's con- 
fession certainly was. It appears to be much of the same 
nature as the centurion's, who watched the crucifixion. Matt, 
xxvii. 54. See notes. They regarded him as a man highly 
favoured of God, endowed with most extraordinary powers, as 
Satan surmised he was, Matt. iv. 3, 6, but without any concep- 
tion of his Divine nature and attributes as the Son of God and 
the Creator of all things. This view of the passage detracts 
nothing from the proofs of the doctrine of our Lord's Divine 
nature, and his equality in that nature with God the Father. 
For this great truth is to be proved rather by his own words 
and works, than by the confessions of his disciples, especially 
those made before they were inspired, and when they were 
imperfectly instructed in the mysteries of redemption. See 
Matt. xvi. 21—23. 

Matt. xv. 12, 13. "Then came his disciples and said to 
him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they 
heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant 
which my heavenly Father hath not planted . shall be rooted 

»p-" 

It is interesting and instructive to observe, how constantly 
the disciples approached the Saviour to give him information of 



148 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

■what they observed, as if his knowledge and means of know- 
ledge were limited like their own. This fell in with his own 
habit of inquiring of them concerning many things, as if he 
needed information. John vi. 5, 6; Matt. xvi. 13; John ii. 
24, 25. Hence we learn how completely his superior nature 
was concealed under his humanity. None of the apostles 
appear to have realized his glory as Son of Man, or his omnis- 
cience as divine, until after his resurrection. Then Peter, in 
answer to his thrice repeated inquiry, declared the great truth : 
"Lord, thou knowest all things." John xxi. 17. It was a part 
of the Divine plan that it should be so. Perhaps we may say it 
was one of the constraints to which the Saviour had submitted, 
that he should not always act upon what he knew, but upon 
what had been communicated to him in the way of ordinary 
intercourse between men. But what we wish particularly to 
note is, the Divine purpose as to the ultimate condition of this 
world. The remark, it is true, has a special application to the 
Pharisees, who were offended at his doctrine. Yet it is a great 
truth of universal application. The figure the Saviour employs, 
may remind the reader of the parable of the tares. The enemy 
is planting his seed and nurturing his plants ; but they shall, 
when the time of the harvest comes, all be rooted up, and 
nothing which is not of heavenly origin shall be suffered to 
remain. This instruction, which was privately given to the 
disciples, coincides with the Lord's prayer — "Thy kingdom 
come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven." 

Matt. xv. 21. "Then Jesus went thence and departed into 
[say towards] the coasts [borders] of Tyre and Sidon." 

John the Baptist and our Lord were both ministers of the 
circumcision. See verse 24, and Rom. xv. 8. It does not ap- 
pear that either ever crossed the borders of the land of Israel. 
And when our Lord passed through Samaria in going from 
Jerusalem to Galilee, John iv. 3, 4, there was a necessity for 
it, as the Evangelist is careful to inform us ; because the Sa- 
maritans were not among those to whom he was sent. Matt. x. 
5 ; xv. 24. For these reasons the word (e«c) translated into, 
in this verse, should be rendered towards, or into the neighbour- 
hood of the territories of Tyre and Sidon, for he did not 
actually go out of the land of Israel. This was another con- 
straint which he put upon himself as a man, to confine himself 
strictly to the objects of his mission. John the Baptist's mis- 
sion was so closely bound up with his, that we do not suppose 
the Holy Spirit with which he was filled would have allowed 
him to lead any other manner of life than he did. 

Matt. xv. 22 — 28. The miracle recorded in these verses, 
was performed after the death of John the Baptist, and of 



CHRIST AGAIN MULTIPLIES BREAD. 149 

course after the trial of Israel as a nation virtually was ended. 
See notes on Matt. xiv. 3 — 12. Yet it is plain the objects of 
our Lord's mission to Israel were not fully accomplished. They 
were still the sheep of which he was the shepherd, yet lost 
sheep ; because they had rejected the Lord's forerunner, and 
were soon to reject and crucify him. Yet they were still the 
children of the kingdom, and the blessings the Saviour had to 
dispense were their bread. Rom. xv. 27. The time had not 
come when Gentiles were to be admitted as sharers therein; 
but this obstacle was overcome by the faith and importunity of 
this Gentile mother. To illustrate the power of faith by this 
further example, the Evangelist records this miracle. In the 
case of the centurion, Matt. viii. 5 — 10, it does not appear to 
what nation the servant belonged. In this case the subject of 
the miracle was a Gentile. According to Mark, vii. 24 — 39, 
the interview took place in a house into which the Saviour had 
entered with a desire to be concealed, yet with some of his 
disciples, as it appears by Matthew. It may be regarded, 
therefore, as a private instruction to them, and disconnected 
with the public purposes of his ministry. 

Matt. xv. 30. "And great multitudes came to him, having 
with them those that were lame, blind, dumb, maimed, and 
many others, and cast them down at Jesus' feet, and he healed 
them." 

These miracles were performed near the sea of Galilee, 
verse 29. We infer that the number and variety of them were 
unusually great. The impression they made on the minds of 
the people was deep, verse 31, and to make it still deeper, the 
Saviour, before he dismissed them, again miraculously fed them. 
According to the views suggested in the note on Matt. xiv. 10, 
we do not suppose these miracles were performed to prove the 
actual presence of the kingdom of heaven, or with a view to his 
being received by the nation in their collective capacity ; but 
rather to commend himself to the people individually as the 
Son of Man, and Saviour of all who would receive him. The 
Evangelist John, i. 11, 12, refers to this two-fold aspect, or 
direction of our Lord's public ministry — the one ending, and 
the other beginning at the death of John. We have seen how 
deeply the popular mind was impressed by the first miracle of 
the loaves. The Saviour now performed another of the same 
kind, after healing all the sick brought to him in order to pre- 
pare their minds fully for the course of instruction* upon 

* Our Lord's discourse in John vi. 26 — 58, has already been referred to. 
See foot note to Matt. xiv. 10. We now add, for the purpose of pointing out 
more fully the change in our Lord's public instruction after the death of John 
the Baptist, a few references to his discourses in the seventh, eighth, tenth, 



150 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

•which he had just entered, with a view to the gathering out of 
the nation, the beginnings or groundwork of an elect people, 
who would receive him notwithstanding the nation, as such, 
had virtually rejected him, by rejecting his forerunner. From 
the death of John, therefore, the public ministry of our Lord 
in this respect, was like that which he afterwards appointed for 
his apostles. See Rom. ix. 5, 14; 1 Cor. ix. 22. 

Matt. xvi. 4. " A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh 
after a sign, and there shall be no sign given unto it but the 
sign of the prophet Jonas: and he left them and departed." 

This verse was remarked upon in connection with Matt, 
xii. 38. But that declaration was made before the death of 
John the Baptist, and contains one of the few allusions which 
the Saviour publicly made to his death, during John's lifetime. 
See John ii. 19. This declaration was made after the death of 
John, and this was a further reason for refusing the sign the 
Pharisees and Sadducees demanded. Our Lord's ministry, 
from being national in its appeal or object, had now become 
personal among the people ; and if they desired, or pretended 
to desire, the sign, with a view to his reception by the nation 
as Messiah, the import of the answer was, it was too late for 
that purpose. Their trial as a nation was virtually over. All 
the appointed signs had been given but one, and that one was 

and twelfth chapters of John. In the seventh chapter we find an obscure allu- 
sion to his ascension, verses 33, 34, and to the gift of the Holy Spirit, verse 39, 
as well as individual appeals to his hearers, verses 37, 38. In the eighth 
chapter we find an allusion to his crucifixion, verse 28 — a warning of the con- 
sequences of their unbelief, verses 21 — 24 — invitations to follow him as the 
light of the world, verse 12 — promises to those who believed, verses 31, 32, 51 — 
a strong denunciation of their sinful character, verses 41 — 44 — an assertion of 
his pre-existence and oneness with the Father, verses 56, 58. In the ninth 
•chapter we have an account of one convert, verses 35 — 38, and his own decla- 
ration as to the effect of his mission, verse 39, founded upon the foreseen 
rejection of himself by the nation. The appeal of his discourse in the tenth 
chapter is personal and individual. He portrays his character and office under 
the emblem of the good shepherd, and assuming his rejection as actual, plainly 
declares his purpose to lay down his life for his sheep, verses 11, 15, 17, 18. 
He alludes also to the calling of the Gentiles, verse 16, to the purpose of 
forming an elect people out of both Jews and Gentiles, verses 27, 28, 29, and 
plainly declares his Divine nature, verse 30. We observe the same individual 
appeal in the twelfth chapter, verses 25, 26, 35, 36, and a plain allusion to his 
death, verses 32, 33. These discourses were all delivered after the death of 
John. How different they are from those pronounced before, may be seen by 
comparison of them with the sermon on the mount, Matt, v., vi., vii., and his 
public parables. Matt. xiii. 1 — 9, 24 — 33 ; and see also John v. 17 — 47. The 
Gospel of John, we suppose, was designed in part, to exhibit more fully than 
the other Evangelists had done, the public discourses of our Lord after the 
death of John the Baptist, and his private instruction of his disciples. In these 
two particulars, it is very rich and full. The miracles which he wrought 
during this period were proof of his Divine authority to command the belief 
of the people, and their hearty reception of him as the only and all-sufficient 
Saviour of men. See the note on Matt. xiii. 



THE FALSE DOCTRINES OF THE PHARISEES. 151 

typically set forth by the prophet Jonas. We observe too, that 
on the first occasion, our Lord's answer was little more than a 
denial of their request. Now, however, he explains the ground 
of his refusal by referring to their own principles of action. 
This was in effect converting the question into one of personal 
and individual concern, and accords well with the altered 
purposes of his ministry. It was a kind of argumentum ad 
homiriem. 

His miracles, which they had seen from the beginning of 
John's imprisonment, were unequivocal signs of the times, and 
conclusive evidence of his character. John's death was to the 
nation another sign of the most momentous import. These 
signs, he told them, they ought to consider with as much 
candour and care, as they employed in the ordinary concerns of 
life, as the stake they individually had in them was of infinite 
moment. As if he had said, "I go my way," and if you con- 
sider not these signs, and decide and act upon them with 
the candour and earnestness you observe in your temporal 
affairs, " and believe not that I am he" that should come, 
u ye shall die in your sins." John viii. 21, 24. 

Matt. xvi. 6, 7. " Then said Jesus to them, Take heed and 
beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. 
And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we 
have taken no bread." 

This is one of several passages which exhibit, in a striking 
manner, the dulness of the apostles, or their want of sagacity 
to apprehend the Saviour's meaning, even when his allusions 
were very plain. See chap. xv. 16; John xiii. 29, 36; xiv. 5. 
They seem to have been quite as dull of apprehension as the 
common people, who did not enjoy his private instruction. 
John vii. 35; xiii. 36. We are sometimes ready to inquire, 
why the Saviour, who had such control over their minds, did 
not infuse into them greater powers of comprehension ; but the 
answer is, this belonged to the office of the Holy Spirit. 
John xvi. 13. 

The allusion in these verses to the corrupt doctrines of the 
Pharisees and Sadducees, seems to us plain enough, yet they 
thought he referred to their having forgotten to take bread 
with them, and they understood his words as a caution against 
buying of those who had no good will to them, and were wicked 
enough to poison their food. A moment's reflection upon what 
they had just before seen, should have convinced them that the 
matter of a few loaves of bread was not of the slightest 
consequence to him, and that the conjecture they made was of 
all imaginable the most improbable; but it gave the Saviour 
the occasion to show them the import of his miracles of the 



152 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

loaves, and what the difference between them was designed to 
prove. 

Their strange conceit is recorded for the sake of the rea- 
soning by which the Lord removed it. His questions show 
wherein the force of these miracles lay. In the first of them, 
he fed five thousand men with five loaves, and the fragments 
remaining filled twelve (xofcvooq) baskets. In the second, he 
fed four thousand with seven loaves, and the fragments re- 
maining filled only seven (onuptdac;) smaller baskets; that is, 
the smaller number of loaves was sufficient to satisfy the larger 
number of persons, and leave a greater surplus remaining — 
thus proving that his power was not graduated, or limited by, 
or in any way dependent on the supply. This, however, would 
not appear from the miracles, if the (aTtupcoa^) baskets left of 
the seven loaves were larger (proportionally) than the (xoiftvooc;) 
baskets of fragments left of the five loaves; for then the surplus 
left of the seven loaves would be greater in proportion as the 
number of the loaves and the number fed was less. The readers 
of the English translation naturally understand that the 
baskets, in both cases, were of the same description. The 
original shows they were different. What the exact difference 
is between the original words may be hard to determine, but 
the point of our Lord's question requires us to assume that the 
(onoptdo.<z)* baskets remaining of the seven loaves were of less 
size than the (xocpwout:) others. Thus understood, by the first 
miracle, the smaller number of loaves supplied the larger 
number of persons, leaving of the fragments a larger number of 
larger baskets ; and by the second miracle, the larger number 
of loaves supplied a smaller number of persons (sufficiently 
indeed,) but left only a smaller number of smaller baskets full 
of fragments. The difference, he would have his disciples 
understand, depended solely upon his will — in other words, 
that the abundance, if we may so express it, in the latter 
miracle, did not increase his power nor the deficiency in the 

* In Acts ix. 25, we read that Paul was let down through the wall of 
Damascus (gji <r7rvpdi) in a basket. The object of the writer is to show the 
imminence of the danger to which the apostle was exposed, and one of the 
circumstances laid hold of to show it was, the insecure means to which his 
friends, in their haste or extremity, were obliged to resort. If we suppose 
the basket comparatively so small and frail that it could not receive and 
securely sustain the apostle's person (which according to tradition was not 
large,) we perceive the force of this circumstance. Had it been a (noqivos) 
basket large enough and strong enough to contain a man of ordinary size and 
weight, the danger of his descent to the ground would have been much less, 
perhaps it would not have been mentioned at all. The apostle, referring to 
this danger, 2 Cor. xi. 32, and the means of his escape, uses the word o-ApynvM, 
which probably signifies in this place a small basket made of twigs. Vaipy's 
Steph. Thes. cccci. vol. i. 



CHRIST AS THE SON OF MAN. 153 

former instance diminish it; but the effect in both cases 
depended simply on his will, and not upon the means he em- 
ployed. 

We add only that both these miracles are to be ascribed to 
his power as Son of Man, and they prove his absolute dominion 
over nature. See Ps. lxvii. 1, 6. 

With these verses the Evangelist commences a series of 
most important instructions privately given to the disciples, 
extending, with the exception of five verses, (xvii. 14 — 18,) 
to the end of the eighteenth chapter. It is a rich vein of 
Divine mysteries, which will amply reward the profoundest 
study. 

Matt. xvi. 13, 14. "When Jesus came into the coasts of 
Cesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying : Whom [who] 
do men say that I the Son of Man, am ? And they said, Some 
say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others, 
Jeremias, or one of the prophets." 

There was an immeasurably deeper mystery in the person of 
our Lord than any connected with the person of John the Bap- 
tist. The mystery of John's character and relations arose 
chiefly from the obscurely revealed purpose of two advents of 
the Messiah — the first to suffer, the second to reign ; and the 
consequent appointment of two forerunners — the first under the 
covenant of law ; the second under the covenant of grace. The 
mystery of our Lord's person consisted, if we may so express 
it, in the trinity of relations or characters which he sustained, 
each of which involved mysteries too deep for creatures to com- 
prehend. 1 Pet. i. 12. He was the Word, John i. 14, and as 
such the Creator and Governor of all things. John i. 3. He 
was the Son of Man, and as such, the absolute Lord of the 
world. He was the seed of the Davidic covenant, and as such, 
the Messiah of Israel. The mystery of John's character was 
involved in the last of these relations, that, namely, of our 
Lord's Messiahship; whereas the chief mystery of our Lord's 
person lay in the union of his Divine and human nature, and of 
his human nature to the seed of Abraham. 

The question our Lord proposed to his disciples respected his 
humanity, or his nature, as Son of Man. Notice the particu- 
larity of the question: It is not "whom [who] do men say that 
I am?" In that form the question would have involved the 
whole complexity of his being, which is incomprehensible by 
creatures. The question turned upon his manhood or humanity. 
"Whom [who] do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?" This 
was his intermediary character, connecting, as it were, his God- 
head with his Messiahship, as God-Man-Messiah. 

David, we have shown, had some glimpses of his majesty and 
20 



154 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

glory as Son of Man; see notes on Matt. ix. 4; and was over- 
whelmed by the greatness of the promise, that so great and 
glorious a Being should become incarnate in his race. Whether 
he had any conception of the mystery which lay aback of this — 
the union, namely, of the Divine to his nature as Son of Man, 
cannot be inferred either from the Psalm he had composed, or 
from his address to God, which we have considered; notes on 
Matt. ix. 4. However this may be, it is plain from the answer 
of the disciples, that the people had no proper conception of his 
character or person in any of these relations. They mistook the 
order of his manhood. John the Baptist, Elias, Jeremias, and 
all the prophets were of the fallen race of the first Adam. They 
were mortal men, and heirs of the fortunes of their fallen pro- 
genitor. He was the Second Adam, and by Divine covenant 
the head of a holy, undying race, and Lord of the world. He 
could not die except by his own voluntary submission to powers 
which were under his control. John x. 17, 18. 

We cannot have any adequate conception of an essentially 
immortal man, and much less of our Lord's manhood in union 
(as it was from the beginning designed to be) with the Divine 
Nature. That it is fraught with the deepest mysteries, is 
proved by John iii. 13, vi. 62 ; xvii. 5. That the mysteries of 
the nature of angels are not to be compared with the mystery 
of our Lord's manhood, may be inferred from his exaltation in 
that nature immeasurably above them. Heb. i. 4, 6. See notes 
on Matt, xxviii. 9, 10. That he existed in his human (though 
not fleshly) nature before the world was, or the angels were 
created, has been maintained by many learned and pious 
divines. But without entering into this question, we add in the 
note below a few passages, which will sufficiently open it for the 
consideration of the reader.* 

* The truth of the matter as it lies in Jesus, is thus: This mediatory person, 
being made the Glory-Man of God's fellowship, Zech. xiii. 7, in his counsels 
from everlasting, is that image and likeness subsisting in covenant-union at 
that time, in the Second person of God; though not then subsisting by incar- 
nate union, and actual birth-union of the flesh of Christ in the Son of God. 
He becomes absolutely, as the man, the first-pattern of God's workmanship in 

the creation; and so the first likeness or creature of God. Col. i. 15 

Now according to this likeness, subsisting in and abiding with God in the Son, 
and with the Father, John i. 1, 2, God the Spirit comes down with a creating 
power, and by the pattern of the covenant-man, forms that noble creature, 
Man, or Adam, whom he raised into being in the Garden of Eden, and out of 
whose loins he had ordered that the natural [or fleshly] substance of that other 
man [the Second Adam] the Lord from heaven, and of his bride too, the Elect, 
should be taken in the work of creation — the creation and marriage of Adam 
and Eve being intended as a shadow of the mystery; as is clear by the apostle 
Paul's arguing in Eph. v. 23 — 32. — The Glory of Christ Unveiled, by Joseph 
Hussey, p. 175. 

" Christ is Nature's fulness, as well as the Gospel's. He lighteneth every 



CHRIST AS THE SON OF MAN. 155 

Matt. xvi. 15. " He saith unto them, But whom [who] say 
ye that I am?" Without making any observation on these 
opinions of the people, our Lord immediately propounds the 
same question to the disciples, somewhat abbreviated, yet 

man, with natural understanding, that cometh into the world, John i. 9, and 
that, as he is God's image." Col. i. 15. It was in this image Adam was 
created; and it has pleased the Father, that all fulness should dwell in Christ. 

Col. i. 19 There is nothing of God communicable to us, or 

to any creature in heaven or earth [except by derivation from, or] out of 
Christ's fulness, either of Nature, or Grace, or Glory." — Glory of Christ, by 
Joseph Hussey, p. 103, 104. 

[The] image then spoken of in Genesis, i. 26, is the substantial image of 

God, Heb. i. 3, or the Glory-Man subsisting in the second person of 

God : so standing in him before Adam, as to and with God, who is incapable 
of changeable sight, he was considered and reputed the same. He was to 
stand for ever. lb. p. 102. 

What can we make of these texts [of the Old Testament] which call him 
The Man [The Adam] (Ezek. ix. 3, 11 ; x. 2, 6, 7 ; Dan. xii. 6, 7 ; Zech. vi. 
11, 12 ; xiii. 7) if we shut out his secret being with God before the open ways 
and means, of his open being with men? Was he a man at all in their sense,' 
who deny that he was a man otherwise than intentionally to be a man, till he 
existed by incarnation in the Virgin's womb ? They think it enough, because 
'tis orthodox to own he was God, without beginning, and Man in and from the 
Virgin's womb. But though this is truth and orthodox, it is not all the truth. 

It is sound to hold the person of the Mediator, God-Man, to be 

one person and two distinct natures, but it is not sufficient, if we do not begin 
the human nature as the secret glory-man with the Father in the Son from 
everlasting. Prov.viii. 22 — 31; John xvii. 5. 

He was actually man to God before his incarnation in the womb, of the sub- 
stance of the Virgin. He was a man with God by a beginning from everlast- 
ing, as well as he was actually God before without beginning from everlasting. 
He was a man secretly in the covenant before he was incarnate secretly in his 
mother's m>mb. This was the condition of the Mediator to and with God in 
the everlasting covenant. 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; vii. 18, 19; 1 Chron. xvii. 17. The 
intermediate successions of things, and all the changes in the ways and means, 
were future or to be, in respect of the Man and in respect of the church; not 
in respect of God : For it was clone in God and to God and with God, before ; 
and yet the Divine Settlements and laws of Heaven made it as necessary, that 
it should be done in the man and to the man successively through time, as it was 
certainly done in God, to God, and with God, upon the man, by infallible set- 
tlements, constitution, and make, in his secret covenant among the persons of 
the Godhead, before all time." — Hussey, Glory of Christ Unveiled, p. 185. 

Calvin says in his readings upon Daniel: "In eo nihil est absurdi quod 
Christus aliquam speciem humane naturae exhiberet antequam manifestatus 
in carne." Calvin, however, does not maintain this view. 

Dr. Henry More [Oper. fol. 66) says: "Quodque Angelus qui ducebat 
Israelitas in terram Canaan, Christus erat, videtur plane asseri 1 Cor. x. 5. 
Neque tentemus Christum sicut quidam eorum tentarunt, etc. Christus vero 
non nudus Deus est, sed complexum quid ex humana natura et Divina. Per- 

pende Heb. xi. 26 Atque profectd animam Messiae in rerum natura 

fuisse antequam nostram carnem sumpserat, sensus maxime facilis ac naturalis 
illius loci 1 John iv. 2, videtur etiam inferre. Tlctv 7rnvy.-x o o/uoxoyti luacuv Xpi<rrov 

h 0-a.pm zxnhuBcr'j. \k rou Qav Wnv Sensus enim genuinus est, 

Quicunque spiritus profitetur Jesum esse Messiam profectum in carnem sive in 
corpus terrestre, ex Deo est ; quod supponit eum fuisse, antequam in illud 
venerat, vel hue e ccelo profectus erat. 

" Rursus ; cum optime fieri possit, ut ille, etiam ante generationem hominum 
et terrarum orbis inhabitationem Messias electus esset (ut ita loquar) et unitus 



156 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

importing the same; as if he had said, "But whom [who] say 
ye that I, the Son of Man, am?" 

Matt. xvi. 16. "And Simon Peter answered and said: 
Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." 

It has already been remarked, that there is much more in 
this answer than in the exclamation of the disciples, when the 
Lord entered their boat from walking on the sea. Matt. xiv. 33. 
See notes. The answer is to be interpreted by the terms of the 
question, and may be thus expressed : " Thou the Son of Man 
art the Christ, the Son of the living Grod." In his Adamic 
nature (or as the Second Adam, that is, Second in the order of 

insuper cum Divino xoya> coelestique gloria, ac pulchritudine resplendens inter 
angelos in coelo ; haec hypothesis rationem reddet admodum facilem et genui- 
nam multorum locorum Novi Testamenti quae aliter valde obscura videntur : 
Queinadmodum illud Philip, ii. 6, 7, 8. Multorum enim mentes excruciavit, 
qui fieri possit, ut ex eo quod homo fiat, sui ipsius exinanitio in ©ternum et 
Hmmutabilem Deum cadat. Ad quod tamen textus digitum videtur intendere. 
Potest autem admodum proprie competere animse Messise, qui etiam verd 
Deus erat per unionem physicam cum Deitate. Similiter Joh. xvii. 4, 5. Glo- 
rificavi te in terra, etc. Nunc igitur glorifica me tu Pater, etc., hoc est, Reduc 
me, Pater, rursus ad teipsum ut ea ^gloria iterum fruar, quam apud te habui 
in coelis antequam homines nati essent, atque hie terrarum orbis formatus. 

Postremo Joh. vi. 38. Quia descendi e coelo utfaciam, 

etc. Et Joh. iii. 31. Qui e coelo venit supra omnes est. Et adhuc explicatius, 
Joh. xvi. 28. Exivi ex Patre et veni in mandum, et iterum relinquo mundum et 
proficiscor ad Patrem. Sed omnium explicatissime, Joh. iii. 13. Nullus enim 
ascendit in coelum nisi qui descendit e coelo nempe filius hominis qui est in coelo. . . 
. . . Quibus omnibus addere poteris. Joh. vi. 62. Quod si igitur spectaveritis 
filium hominis ascendentem eo ubi erat prius.- Vide Prov. xxx. 4. 

Dr. Watts held to the belief that the human soul of Christ exists! with the 
Father from before the foundation of the world, on which ground he main- 
tained the real descent of Christ from heaven to earth. He says "the gene- 
rality of our Christian writers believe that it was ouly the Divine nature or 
Godhead of Christ which had an existence before he was conceived of the Virgin 

Mary and became incarnate." But " if we suppose the human soul of 

Christ to have a pre-existent state of joy and glory with the Father before the 
world was created, these expressions" (which speak of the abasement of Christ 

and the humiliating change he passed through) "are great and noble 

and have a happy propriety in them to set forth the transcendent love of the 
Father in sending his Son ; and of the Son of God in coming from heaven. 

And this love is exceedingly enhanced while we consider that this 

human soul of Christ was personally united to the Divine Nature, so that 
hereby, God himself becomes manifested in the flesh." 

There is much more in Dr. Watts's writings in support of this belief. Other 
modern authors who have professed and defended it, are Dr. H. More, (before 
quoted,) Dr. Edward Fowler, Bishop of Gloucester, Robert Fleming, Joseph 
Hussey, (also before quoted,) Bishop Gastrell, Dr. Thomas Bennet, Dr. Thomas 
Burnet, Dr. Knight, Dr. Thomas Godwin, and see Dr. Watts's discourses, en- 
titled " The Glory of Christ as God-Man, displayed in three Discourses." 

These quotations and references are not made with a view to any particular 
mode of explaining the doctrine of the Trinity, but only as they bear upon 
the question of the pre-existence of the Son of Man, as the Man of the Cove- 
nant, the Glory-Man, the Second Adam, whose image the apostle Paul teaches, 
1 Cor. xv. 45, his elect people will bear. 

It is proper to add, that Dr. Owen on Heb. ii. takes a different view. 



peter's confession oe christ. 157 

manifestation, though First in the order of being) he was the 
Son of God. Prov. viii. 22 — 31 ; Luke iii. 38 ; comp. 9 verse 
23. In his fleshly nature, which he took from the seed of 
Abraham, he was called Son of God by the angel Gabriel, 
Luke i. 35, because begotten in that nature by the overshadow- 
ing power of the Most High. In his Divine nature also, he was 
the Son of God, and one in essence with the Father, as is proved 
by many passages. John i. 1 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; Matt. i. 23. 
The emphasis of Peter's answer lies, as we conceive, in the 
words {too Zojvtoq) the living. Under one view, these words 
seem superfluous ; for God in his nature is ever-living, eternally 
the same and unchangeable in his being. But as indicating 
precisely the meaning which the apostle intended to express, 
they are by no means superfluous. They signify that as the 
Son of God he partook of the life and being of God — of his 
nature and attributes, John v. 26, just as the son of a mortal 
man partakes of the nature of the father who begat him. Thus 
interpreted, these words declare the profoundest mystery of 
redemption, to wit, the incarnation of God the Son, in Christ, 
which, as we learn by the next verse, could never be known 
except by the revelation of the Father. 

Whether David perceived this mystery, when Nathan con- 
veyed to him God's promise concerning the Messiah, cannot be 
determined, as has been observed, by his address on that occa- 
sion. 1 Chron. xvii. ; 2 Sam. vii. See notes on Matt. ix. 4. 
What struck his mind with overwhelming force, was the exalted 
nature and attributes of our Lord's manhood. Nor can we 
determine from the words of Peter on this occasion, whether 
he apprehended as David did, our Lord's greatness and glory 
as the Second Adam. We infer that he did not, as that was 
not the truth especially revealed to him at that time. Hence 
the importance, if not the necessity of considering together 
these different revelations, as it is only by combining them we 
can form any proper apprehension of the greatness and glory 
of Christ, as God-Man-Messiah. 

Matt. xvi. 17. "And Jesus answered and said unto him, 
Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not 
revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in Heaven." 

There is an emphasis or animation in these words, which 
seems to indicate that our Lord rejoiced that the Father had 
now at length been pleased to discover this great mystery of 
his person to one of his disciples. Luke x. 21; Matt. xi. 25. 
It was a great event, and was soon followed, as we shall see, by 
the disclosure of other mysteries by himself, of which the dis- 
ciples had not the remotest conception before ; we mean the 



158 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

mysteries of his death, resurrection, and glorification, verse 21 ; 
and xvii. 1, 2. This apostle was blessed in being chosen first 
to receive and declare this great mystery of the incarnation. 
He was told that the discovery he had made, was not due to his 
own sagacity, . or any human teaching, or even to his own 
Divine teaching, but solely to the revelation of the Father. 

It is worthy of observation also, that our Lord addresses this 
apostle by his original name, Simon Bar-jona, as he did after 
his resurrection, at the Sea of Tiberias, John xxi. 15, 16, 17, 
and not by that he had given him at their first interview before 
his call. John i. 42. That there is something significant in this 
manner of address we cannot doubt. At least it renders 
probable the suggestion, that the name Peter was then first 
given him to denote the fact that he first declared the Divine 
Sonship of the Lord Jesus. 

Matt. xvi. 18. "And I say unto thee that thou art Peter' , 
[that is, that thou art he who has rightly declared the mystery 
of my person as Son of Man] " and upon this rock" [this 
foundation, meaning God's work of revealing to his elect people 
the mystery of the incarnation] " I will build my church, and 
the gates of hell" [that is death] "shall not prevail against it." 

Matt. xvi. 19. "And I will give unto thee the keys of 
the kingdom of heaven, [literally, of the heavens,] and what- 
soever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, 
[literally, in the heavens,] and whatsoever thou shalt loose on 
earth shall be loosed in heaven," [literally, in the heavens.] 

Great use is made of these words by Romanists to establish 
the supremacy of Peter over the other apostles, and of those 
who claim to be his successors, over the Church of Christ, but 
without good reason. One argument against this use of the 
passage is derived by Protestant commentators from Matt, 
xviii. 18, where the power claimed for Peter, it is supposed, is 
expressly given to all the apostles, or rather to the Church. 
The verse reads thus: "Verily I say unto you, whatsoever ye 
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," — not in the 
heavens, as in Matt. xvi. 19 — " and whatsoever ye shall loose 
on earth shall be loosed in heaven" — not in the heavens, as 
before. 

In the context of this passage, xviii. 15 — 18, our Lord had 
prescribed a course of proceeding to be observed towards an 
offending brother, the last step of which was, to make a com- 
plaint against him to the Church. This plainly is a measure of 
church discipline. He then added, addressing all the disciples, 
"Whatsoever ye shall bind," &c. We observe here a change 
from the plural of the word heaven, which the Lord used when 






THE KEYS GIVEN TO PETER. 159 

addressing Peter, to the singular, and the first question is, 
whether the change is unimportant? Are the singular and 
plural form of this word (heaven) indiscriminately used ? See 
notes on Matt. vi. 9. Or is the change of phraseology signifi- 
cant and designed? In the next verse, Matt, xviii. 19, the 
Church is not spoken of in a collective capacity, but as if to 
show the efficacy of union in prayer, our Lord adds a similar 
promise : " Again I say unto you, that if any two of you shall 
agree on earth as touching anything that ye shall ask, it shall 
be done for them of my Father which is in heaven," literally, 
in the heavens, reverting to the plural form again. 

A careful perusal of this Gospel in the original Greek, will 
show very clearly that the Evangelist does not use these two 
forms of the word indiscriminately, and we assume that the 
sense is not the same in the two passages under consideration. 
The difference appears to be this : In Matt, xviii. 18, our Lord 
is speaking of his future Church, and he gives them a law or 
rule, by which they should regulate their conduct in the case of 
an offending brother who will not listen to the admonitions of 
the Church. Upon this precept, the discipline of excommunica- 
tion is in a great measure founded. To this rule the apostle 
Paul plainly refers in 2 Thess. iii. 6. Our Lord's meaning 
appears to be, that such an act, so done, during the Church 
state, and until the end of the dispensation of the Church 
militant, shall receive the Divine sanction. The promise to 
Peter, on the other hand, is personal to him, and has respect 
to the times of the kingdom, which are yet future, and are to 
follow the times appointed for the gathering of the elect Church, 
and therefore gave him no such supremacy in the Church as has 
been claimed for him. 

What, precisely, is the import of this promise to Peter, we 
know not, nor can we imagine what privileges and powers are 
implied in the promise of thrones and dominion over the twelve 
tribes of Israel, which our Lord afterwards made to all the 
apostles. Matt. xix. 28; and see Luke xxii. 29, 30. If it were 
allowable to conjecture upon so obscure a matter, we should 
suggest, that the promise to Peter of the gift of the keys is, in 
some way, connected with the second advent of our Lord, and 
may in some respects be analogous to the office of John th 
Baptist or of Elijah. 

This dogma of the Romanists rests upon the assumption that 
the Church is the kingdom of heaven, which John the Baptist 
and our Lord preached, whereas the times of the kingdom are 
the times of the restitution of all things, to be introduced at the 
second coming of the Lord. 



160 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Matt. xvi. 20. "Then charged he his disciples that they 
should tell no man that he was Jesus,* the Christ/' 

This injunction, it will be borne in mind, was given after the 
death of John the Baptist. As we have already suggested 
(see notes on .Matt. xiv. 10,) the trial of the nation was then 
virtually over, and our Lord's ministry among the people was 
directed to the reception of himself by individuals as the Son 
of Man, rather than to the reception of himself by the nation as 
their Messiah, and this may have been one of the motives of 
this command. But it should be observed also, that our Lord 
did not at any time during his ministry, publicly assume the 
title of Christ until after his betrayal, Mark xiv. 62, and then 
his public ministry was ended. Then, indeed, such an avowal 
was necessary, in order to show more explicitly the public 
and formal rejection of him by the nation in that character, 
notwithstanding his many miracles, and his sufferings as their 
king. 

The reasons why our Lord did not publicly assume the 
character and title of Christ, have already been sufficiently 
stated in the notes on Matt. xi. 3, to which the reader is 
referred, f 

* Eminent critics agree, that the word 'lua-ou? should be omitted from the 
text. There are fifty-four MSS., it is said, that do not contain this word. 
Besides, it is omitted in several versions, and by most of the early Christian 
writers who quote this verse. We should therefore, read, "that they should 
tell no man that he was the Christ." 

f Every reader of the New Testament, must have observed that Jesus (not 
Christ) is the name usually employed by the Evangelists to designate our 
Lord's person. It occurs about six hundred times in the four Gospels. The 
name or title Christ, on the other hand, occurs but seldom; and the name 
Jesus Christ still more unfrequently in the Gospels. In Matthew's Gospel, the 
name Christ occurs eleven times; in Mark's, six; in Luke's, twelve; and in 
John's, eighteen times. The name Jesus Christ, occurs in Matt. i. 1, 18; 
Jesus the Christ, in Matt. xvi. 20; Jesus called Christ, in Matt. i. 16. In 
Luke's Gospel he is nowhere designated by both these names. If we turn 
to the Epistles, we find the reverse to be the fact. The apostles in their 
Epistles, and Luke in the Acts, commonly apply to him both names. Jesus 
Christ, or the Lord Jesus Christ, or our Lord Jesus Christ, or our Lord and 
Saviour Jesus Christ, but seldom Jesus without addition, although sometimes 
they do. See Philip, ii. 10 ; 1 Thess. i. 10 ; Heb. ii. 9. In Paul's Epistles, 
there are nearly two hundred examples of one or the other of these designa- 
tions. 

This change is too remarkable to be accounted for on the ground of popular 
usage, which Dr. Campbell suggests ; for, as Calvin observes, Inst, book ii. 
chap. xvi. § 1, "as the name Jesus was not given him rashly, or by fortuitous 
accident, or by the will of man," so we suggest, the change from the name 
Jesus, to Christ or Jesus Christ after his ascension was not unadvisedly or 
accidentally made, nor did it come through mere usage or the pleasure of man. 
He was not called Christ during his public ministry, because he did not 
publicly assume that character, for the reasons above suggested. He was called 
Christ after his ascension, because he really was the Christ, and was rejected 
by the nation in that character. See notes on Matt. xvii. 22. 






Christ's rebuke of peter. 161 

Matt. xvi. 21. "From that time forth began Jesus to show 
unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and 
suffer many things of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, 
and be killed, and be raised again the third day." 

It is very interesting to notice the method our Lord observed 
in the instruction of his disciples, apart from the multitudes, 
after the death of John the Baptist. See John xvi. 4, and 
notes on Matt. xiv. 10. The words (d~o tots) from, that time, 
see notes on Matt. iv. 12 — 17, refer to the time of the revela- 
tion to Peter of the mystery of the incarnation, verse 16. 
This mystery once apprehended, the Lord proceeds immediately 
to declare the next in order, namely, the mystery of his death 
and resurrection. But these mysteries they were slow to 
apprehend, Matt. xvi. 22; xvii. 23; Mark viii. 32; Luke 
xviii. 34, and really did not, until after the events foretold had 
occurred. Luke xxiv. 20, 21; John xx. 9; Mark ix. 10. xsot 
understanding these mysteries, they were of course incapable 
of comprehending the allusions he made to his ascension, John 
vi. 62, and his future advent in glory, John xvi. 12. Yet he 
taught this in the plainest terms, verse 27 ; and to enable some 
of them better to apprehend his meaning, was transfigured 
before them, within eight days after the first of these mysteries 
was revealed to Peter. It was a memorable week of their 
discipleship ; for in this brief space of time the five great 
mysteries of redemption were made known to them, namely, 
the incarnation, the death, the resurrection, the glorification, 
and future advent of the Lord. 

Matt. xvi. 22. "Then Peter took him and began to rebuke 
him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord : this shall not be unto 
thee." 

Peter had just been taught by inspiration one great mystery, 
but nothing more. Of the rest he was quite as ignorant as his 
fellow-apostles, and remained so until he was taught by the 
fulfilment of the predicted events. " Men frequently teach," 
or attempt to teach, "all things at once; Divine wisdom acts 
far otherwise." Bengel. In the same manner the whole of 
Divine revelation has been given to the world. Heb. i. 1. 

Peter's observation, however affectionately intended, was not 
only rash and contradictory to the Saviour and the Scriptures, 
but prompted by a carnal mind. It was wholly at variance 
with the hidden wisdom of God, in regard to the world's redemp- 
tion, as appears by our Lord's reply. 

Matt. xvi. 23. " But he turned and said to Peter, Get .thee 
behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me:" [Vx«>o6c/ov, 
or an impediment in the path of my duty and office,] "for thou 



162 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of 
men." 

Peter was looking to a kingdom in the unredeemed world, 
groaning as it was, and still is, under the curse of God. He 
had no conception of the expedient Divine Wisdom had devised 
to repair the ruin brought upon the world and upon men at the 
fall by the curse. As however he confidently believed that 
Jesus was the Christ, verse 16, he confidently expected his 
kingdom would then be established, and with this thought in 
his mind and these words on his lips, it is plain he was looking 
for a much more inglorious dominion for his Master, than was 
worthy of him to establish or accept. It was a kingdom of the 
same kind as that which Satan proffered, and which the Lord 
rejected with the same words of rebuke he employed on this 
occasion. Luke iv. 8. Unwittingly, therefore, Peter, though 
an attached friend and follower, touched upon the same point 
as Satan did, and so far as his words can be supposed to have 
had any persuasive effect, they were a temptation to him to 
give up the work of suffering and death, through which alone, 
his kingdom could be established consistently with his own glory 
and the Divine plan. In this way we account for the sharp- 
ness and severity of the Saviour's rebuke, and for the same 
form of words he had employed in his answer to the tempter. 

Matt. xvi. 21—27. 

A close and natural connection of- thought runs through 
these verses. Peter in his ignorance would have his Master 
exempted from the sufferings and death he had now for the first 
time plainly predicted. In this he savoured of the things of 
men. As Peter's remark showed this, the Lord took occasion 
to declare with equal plainness what his followers must expect, 
as if he had said, " I must suffer many things of the elders and 
chief priests and Scribes, and be put to death. And you, my 
followers, must be prepared for the same usage. Covet not the 
kingdoms or the glory of this world, but take up the cross of 
crucifixion as the slave does, and suffer death upon it, if fidelity 
to me requires it. Thinking and feeling thus, you will savour 
of the things of God, for it has been appointed that only through 
my sufferings and death my kingdom can be established." 

This thought brings out the meaning of what follows. "The 
loss of life in this way is no loss of life at all. On the con- 
trary, it is the divinely appointed way to gain eternal life. 
The world, and all the kingdoms of this world, are really of no 
moment. The honour and the eminence they can confer, will 
profit you nothing." The Saviour put a case of extreme suf- 
fering — that of a torturing, lingering death, with ignominy. 
He means to requiret he entire and supreme devotion of his 



THE VALUE OF THE SOUL. 163 

followers under all, even the most trying circumstances. He 
intimates too, that occasions will occur, in which they will be 
put to this severest of tests. . To counterpoise this, he adds, 
that the Son of Man, though he must thus suffer, shall never- 
theless afterwards come in the glory of his Father, with retri- 
butions and rewards for every man according to his works. 

Our Lord here teaches, by implication, if not explicitly, his 
second advent in glory, although it is not probable that the 
apostles at that time, comprehended his meaning. Luke xviii. 34. 

Matt. xvi. 26.- "For what is a man profited, if he shall 
gain the whole world and lose his own soul? or what shall a 
man give in exchange for his soul?" 

Man has been called a microcosm, and such indeed he is even 
in this life. He is a little world of capabilities, faculties, and 
endowments, each of which is susceptible of ever-increasing 
enlargement during unending ages. Especially is this true of 
man as redeemed and renewed by the Holy Spirit. Every- 
thing else, earth-born or earthly, is stinted to certain measures. 
This boon of renewed human nature comes from the union of 
the believer to Christ through the perpetual indwelling of the 
Holy Spirit, whose office it is, not only to sustain and sanctify 
him, but to impart to each and every power and faculty of his 
nature continual and ever-increasing vigour and growth. See 
John i. 4. We know not that such is the condition of any 
other order of God's creatures. Even the holy angels, although 
they may, and no doubt do, advance from age to age in know- 
ledge and happiness' in the service of their Maker — as man 
now does in the progress of his earthly career — yet do not 
sustain that . relation to the Redeemer which his elect people 
do, Heb. ii. 16 ; nor have we reason to suppose that they are 
the subjects of that peculiar creative work which the Holy 
Spirit will ever be performing upon the redeemed of mankind. 
Much less have we reason to suppose, that those of mankind in 
whom the Holy Spirit does not dwell, will share in this privi- 
lege or prerogative of the members of the body of Christ. John 
xv. 1 — 6. Their powers and faculties may remain what they 
may be or will be when their day of grace is over ; for they are 
the subjects of the righteous judgment of God, who will render 
to them individually according to their deeds. Rom. ii. 5, 6. 
Yet if we lay out of view the retributions of the day of judg- 
ment, who can estimate the extent of their loss ? To fail of 
that union to the Redeemer, which brings them under the 
tuition of the Holy Spirit, and insures to them his eternal 
indwelling, is to fail of the great end of their being, and in 
itself is a loss which cannot be measured. Even if the Divine 
goodness, as some vainly imagine, were still to mete out to 



164 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

theni that measure of happiness which they enjoy in this life, 
their station would be fixed among the lowest ranks of creation, 
while those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells will be advanced 
by him from one degree of beauty, and glory, and happiness, 
and power to another, and their capacities for the service and 
the enjoyment of God will be for ever expanding through the 
cycles of eternity. What mind can follow the career of the 
least of God's elect people ? 

The apostle Paul calls believers " the temple of the Holy 
Ghost." 1 Cor. iii, 16, 17; vi. 19; 2 Cor. vi. 16. There is 
much more in this expression than we are apt to consider. 
We are not to restrict it to the present life. The apostle took 
an enlarged view of the destination of the Church. The accom- 
plished aggregate of God's elect, raised to glory by the power 
of the Holy Spirit, constitute the temple of which he spoke. 
This temple is wholly the Spirit's workmanship, Eph. ii. 10, 21, 
and he will for ever dwell in it, and adorn it with new glories, 
and enlarge and strengthen it by his almighty energies. 1 Cor. 
iii. 9 ; Eph. iii. 10. With such views we should ponder the 
Saviour's question, What advantage would a man gain, though 
the profits of his worldliness were the world itself, if thereby he 
suffers even the smallest damage in his soul, or fail of attaining 
these high privileges of the saints ? 

The expression (zrjv de (pofflv abzou tyjuLccody) lose his own soul, 
may perhaps be understood in the sense of suffering damage, 
injury, or loss in the soul, or in respect (xaza tvju (po^/jv) to the 
soul. The expression seems to have been transferred from the 
business of a merchant whose aims are to make profit or gain 
by traffic. The other expression, "What shall a man gain in 
exchange" &c. (dura) May /ua), may be applied to the case of the 
entire loss of it. Thus understood, these two questions have 
respect to different classes of persons — the first, to those saved 
ones who nevertheless fail, through their worldliness, of the 
exceeding blessedness and glory proffered to them, and the last 
to those who shall be finally and for ever lost. 

Matt. xvi. 27. "For the Son of Man shall come in the 
glory of his Father with his angels ; and then shall he reward 
every man according to his works." See John v. 28, 29. 

Every person familiar with the Gospels must have observed 
that our Lord frequently spoke of himself, as of a third person ; 
but it was only when he applied to himself the designation in 
this text — Son of Man. Yet often, when speaking of himself, 
he used the pronominal and customary forms of personal 
reference, as in his sermon on the mount, Matt. v. — vii., and 
in the discourses recorded by John, v. — x. 

Various reasons have been given for this peculiarity, but the 



THE TRANSFIGURATION. 165 

true reason appears to be, that our Lord used this form of 
designation as a titular distinction, to denote his relation to this 
world as its Sovereign or Lord. As an earthly king may speak 
of himself as the king, to denote his relation to his people, so 
the Lord Jesus spoke of himself as the Son of Man, to denote 
his relation to the world as its Lord. The context confirms 
this view. Royalty, and absolute, universal government over 
the world and the whole race of mankind, belong to him as the 
Son of Man, which is as much as to say, that, as Son of Man, 
he is the King of the kings, and the Lord of the lords, of the 
whole earth. It is in no respect synonymous, as some have 
supposed, with his title Messiah. The title Messiah has espe- 
cial reference to Israel and the throne of David, Luke i. 32, 33, 
and to his elect Church, the Israel of God, (see notes on Matt. 
ix. 4, vii. 8,) as we shall have occasion to show hereafter. See 
notes on Matt. xvii. 22. 

Matt. xvi. 28. "Verily, I say unto you, There be some 
standing here which shall not taste of death till they see the 
Son of Man coming in his kingdom." 

With this promise the conversation near Caesarea Philippi 
was concluded. Our Lord commenced it, we have seen, by the 
inquiry, "What men said of him as Son of Man." Having 
received their answer, he repeated the question to the apostles. 
Peter answered it correctly, and received his Master's blessing. 
He then spoke to them for the first time plainly, of his rejection 
by the nation, his sufferings and death. This drew from Peter 
an expression extremely offensive to the Saviour, for which he 
was severely rebuked. This done, the Saviour returns to the 
subject of suffering, and adds that they also, if they would follow 
him, must be willing to suffer, as he was about to suffer, and 
even give up their lives in his service. This was very discour- 
aging to them. It was so opposite to their expectations and 
hopes, that it might naturally be expected to shake their pur- 
poses, unless counteracted by some strong assurance of the 
ultimate attainment of their hopes, and some demonstration of 
the nature and glory of the things he promised. A fit occasion, 
therefore, had occurred for the Saviour to make an extraordi- 
nary manifestation of his glory, as a counterpoise, so to speak, 
to the mournful and discouraging disclosures he had just made. 
For these reasons, among others, we suppose that our Lord, in 
this promise, tacitly referred to his intended transfiguration, 
which occurred on the same day of the week following; thus 
bringing within the compass of eight days, to the knowledge of 
at least three of the apostles, the great mysteries of the king- 
dom, of which before they had no conception. Such appears to 



.166 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

be the connection of the transfiguration with this conversation 
of our Lord with his disciples. 

In confirmation of this view, it may be remarked, that Mark 
and Luke, as well as Matthew, narrate the transfiguration in ' 
immediate connection with this promise. Luke varies a little 
in his expressions from the other Evangelists. He says it was 
about an eight days after these words, (just a rout; XoyooQ too- 
rot>c, ix. 28,) by which he may refer to this promise in particular, 
or to the whole conversation the Saviour had with the disciples 
on that occasion. 

But understood either way, the transfiguration having occur- 
red so soon afterwards, and neither of the Evangelists having 
recorded anything the Saviour said or did during the interval, 
are very probable grounds for believing that they regarded the 
transfiguration the fulfilment of that promise. 

Dr. Whitby, however, thought it " wonderful that some com* 
mentators, both ancient and modern, should refer this passage 
to our Lord's transfiguration on the mount, mentioned in the 
following chapter." But his interpretation, which refers it to 
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, (a. d. 70,) destroys 
the connection of thought between this verse and the context. 
If it be correct, all the apostles, except John, died without 
seeing what the Lord had promised. His chief arguments are 
these: " Seeing the transfiguration, could not be seeing the 
Son of Man coming in his kingdom ; because his kingdom was 
not begun till after the resurrection, when all power in heaven 
and earth was given to him." Matt, xxviii. 18. But see Matt, 
xi. 27. His next argument is, that "it was as true of all the 
disciples as it was of Peter, James, and John, that they should 
not taste of death until after that vision." 

Our Lord said nothing to the contrary of this. He said that 
some of them should not taste of death till they saw the Son 
of Man coming in his kingdom ; not that some of them sJwuld 
taste of death before. None of them did taste of death until 
long after that vision, but nine of them did taste of death with- 
out seeing it, and this is perfectly consistent with the promise. 
To the first of these arguments it may be replied, that the 
transfiguration was a real though transient manifestation of the 
glory of the Son of Man. Moses and Elias really appeared. 
It was a real appearing of a bright cloud — the Shekinah or 
symbol of the Divine presence, as we suppose. There was a 
real voice issuing out of the cloud. In one word, the transac- 
tion, in all its parts and concomitants, was a reality, not a mere 
scenic representation, or a mere impression produced upon the 
minds of the apostles without a corresponding outward reality. 
It was, however, an unearthly reality, and consequently could 



THE TRANSFIGURATION. 167 

be nothing else than an actual appearing. of the Son of Man in 
his form of glory, just as he will appear at his second coming 
in his kingdom. These three apostles, therefore, did see the 
Son of Man coming, i. e. as he will come, in his kingdom, 
although they did not see the kingdom come. 

Thus we are to understand John i. 14: "And we beheld his 
glory — the glory as of the only begotten of the Father;" and 
2 Pet. i. 16, 17: "For we have not followed cunningly devised 
fables, when we made known unto you the poiver and coming of 
our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eye-witnesses of his majesty." 
This apostle evidently refers to some account he had previously 
given to the persons he was writing to, of the transfiguration, 
after our Lord's resurrection, and he proceeds : " For he 
received from God the Father honour and glory, when there 
came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my 
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Peter felt no diffi- 
culty in calling the transfiguration "the power and coming," 
or, "the coming in power" of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor in 
saying that he was an eye-witness of his majesty, when he 
beheld him transfigured, attended by Moses and Elijah, and 
overshadowed by the cloud, or symbol of the Divine presence. 
And to remove all ambiguity as to what he referred to, he adds : 
"And this voice which came from heaven we heard when we 
were with him in the holy mount." 

If the connection of thought be that before suggested, and 
if the object of the Saviour was to teach these favoured disci- 
ples, by an ocular demonstration, the mystery of his glorifica- 
tion, in connection with the mystery of his death and resurrec- 
tion, there was no other event to which this promise of the 
Saviour could refer; for none of them, it is unnecessary to 
observe, lived to see the actual coming and establishment of his 
kingdom over the earth. And if this was not the Saviour's 
purpose, what could it be ? Upon Dr. Whitby's hypothesis, 
what object could the Saviour have in telling the disciples in so 
obscure a manner, that one of their number should survive the 
destruction of Jerusalem ? Would that strengthen or encourage 
them to take up the cross and follow him ; to deny themselves ; 
to renounce all the hopes they had cherished of a kingdom to 
be possessed without shame or suffering? That the motive we 
have suggested is worthy of the Saviour to hold out, is proved 
by Heb. xii. 2. Any other interpretation, especially Dr. Whit- 
by's, dislocates the verse from its natural connections, and 
deprives the promise of any perceptible motive or meaning. 

But, it will be inquired, Why did the Saviour express himself 
so vaguely, if he secretly intended to fulfil the promise, within 
the compass of a week ? " There be some standing here that 



168 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of Man coming in 
his kingdom." These expressions would be natural, if applied 
to an event known or believed to be remote, but would they be 
so, if applied to an event known to be so near ? 

This form of expression no doubt influenced Dr. Whitby. It 
has served, with many commentators, to divert the mind from 
the event the Saviour intended, and this so far from being an 
objection, is a further reason for applying the promise to the 
transfiguration. For consider, the transfiguration was the most 
private of all our Lord's miracles. Three only, of the twelve 
apostles, were permitted to witness it. It was designed to be 
kept a secret until after the Lord's resurrection. Matthew and 
Mark say that he expressly charged them not to speak of it, 
till that event. Luke does not mention this charge, but merely 
says, that "they kept it silent and did not speak of it to any 
man in those days." Now, such being the purpose of the 
Saviour, we may suppose that if he spoke of it at all, he would 
do so only in a very indistinct, indefinite way. He would not 
say particularly that some of them should see him assume his 
form of glory, and call to his presence two of the departed saints. 
Nor would he definitely announce the time when he purposed to 
fulfil the promise. He would not say, within a week or within a 
year some of you shall see the Son of Man coming in his king- 
dom. For, when the time had elapsed, there would be an 
inquiry among them, who had seen the fulfilment of the Lord's 
promise. The apostles, it need not be said, were inquisitive. 
They had much conversation together, and sometimes disputes. 
James and John excited the displeasure of their companions, by 
an ambitious request. It is unnecessary to add, the Saviour 
understood their characters perfectly. He knew their weak- 
nesses and faults, and shaped his conduct with consummate skill 
and prudence. Had it been known which were the favoured 
disciples, might not the others have felt grieved ? See Matt, 
xx. 20 — 28. Perhaps the favour shown to James and John, in 
admitting them to see the transfiguration, emboldened them to 
ask for pre-eminence in the kingdom. However this may be, 
our Lord, by so indefinite a promise, gave no occasion to those 
whom he did not intend thus to favour, to make any inquiry 
about its fulfilment, and thus Peter, James, and John, were not 
known to be the favoured ones, until after our Lord had risen 
from the dead. Then an entirely new order of things com- 
menced. By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they were all 
taught very different views of the kingdom from those they had 
previously entertained. Their envy and ambition were extin- 
guished, and the eight not favoured, rejoiced heartily in the 
favour shown to the three. 






THE TRANSFIGURATION. 169 

Now a promise made with such objects in view, as it would 
necessarily be indefinite in its terms, would naturally produce 
the same effect upon the minds of commentators as it did upon 
the minds of the apostles at that time. None of the apostles 
then knew what the Lord intended. Afterwards they did, and 
the method which the Evangelists took to remove the obscurity, 
was to narrate, in immediate connection, the promise and fulfil- 
ment. The connection comments on the words. 

Matt. xvii. 1. "And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, 
James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high 
mountain apart by themselves." Mark ix. 2 ; Luke ix. 28. 

Luke says it was " about an eight days after these words" — 
meaning perhaps not only the promise but the whole discourse, 
of which the promise was the conclusion — in which computation 
he includes the day on which the promise was made, and also 
the day of the transfiguration, whereas Matthew and Mark 
exclude both these days; so that there is no discrepancy 
between the Evangelists. It is more important, however, to 
notice the particularity with which all of them denote the 
interval of time. According to Dr. Whitby's interpretation, 
and, indeed, any other than that before stated, this precise 
notation of the time can serve no other purpose than that of 
denoting the order of its occurrence. The Evangelists might 
as well have said (fizza zaoza) after these things, or (xou kyevzzo) 
it came to pass (fisza. zauzd) after these things, which are the 
phrases they generally use. The design of this particularity 
we suggest, as before, is to connect the promise, in Matt. xvi. 
28, with the transfiguration as its fulfilment. Thus understood, 
it shows how the Lord hastened to allay the severity of his 
rebuke to Peter by this extraordinary privilege, and how soon 
he practically taught these favoured disciples to look through 
and beyond the sufferings and ignominy he must endure, to the 
glory which would follow. 1 Pet. i. 11. 

And here, it is proper to observe, that our Lord exhibited 
different degrees of evidence of his Divine nature and glory to 
different persons. To his disciples generally, he exhibited more 
than to the multitudes — to the twelve apostles more than to 
his other disciples — to Peter, James, and John, more than to 
the rest of the twelve, and perhaps to Peter more than to James 
or John. Certain it is, that Peter was distinguished by the 
Father above his fellow apostles, in being first taught the mys- 
tery of the incarnation, as has been remarked upon Matt. xvi. 
17 ; and the reader need not be reminded, that there were 
especial reasons why one of the twelve should not be a sharer 
in the extraordinary favours of his Master. See John vi. 70. 

It is noticeable, also, that while the Evangelists are precise 
22 



170 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

in denoting the time, they are very indefinite in respect to the 
place of the transfiguration. Matthew and Mark describe it as 
a high mountain, Luke calls it "the mountain," as though he 
had reference to some particular mountain, but does not inti- 
mate what mountain. Jerome who died A.D. 420, at the age of 
80, that is nearly 400 years after this event (Ad Eustochiam 
Epitaph. Paulas,) has preserved the traditionary opinion or 
belief that Mount Tabor was the mountain referred to by the 
Evangelists. Josephus says that Tabor was in Galilee, twenty 
leagues and more from Caesarea Philippi ; and from Mark, 
ix. 30, we may infer that our Lord was not in Galilee when he 
rejoined his other disciples the next day. Luke ix. 37. 

Others suppose our Lord was transfigured upon Mount 
Panium, situated at the fountains of Jordan, near the foot of 
which Csesarea Philippi was built. See Lamy's Harmony. 
This opinion also rests upon conjecture. None of the apostles, 
except Peter, James, and John, knew the mountain until after 
the resurrection of our Lord. Whether they spoke of it after- 
wards definitely to others, we do not know, but the apostle 
Peter when writing of it, 2 Pet. i. 18, is not more definite than 
the Evangelists, and John, i. 14, when referring to the trans- 
figuration, makes no allusion whatever to the place where it 
occurred. This obscurity was designed in order, perhaps, that 
no occasion should be given to the superstitious practices which 
it was foreseen would have followed, if the Evangelists had 
definitely marked the spot of this most wonderful transaction. 
Matt. xvii. 2. " And was transfigured before them." 
It will be useful before proceeding further, to collect from 
the three Evangelists, and arrange in their order, all the 
circumstances attending the transfiguration. This we have 
attempted to do as follows. But the reader should attempt it 
for himself. (1) Our Lord ascends the mountain to pray, as 
Luke informs us, ix. 28, attended by Peter, James, and John ; 
(2) while in the act of prayer, his person is transfigured, or, as 
Luke expresses it, the appearance of his face was altered or 
became (kzspop, another) changed. His face shone as the sun. 
His garments became white as light (Matt.) — [white exceed- 
ingly as snow, shining, such as no fuller could make them 
(Mark) — white and glistering (Luke)]. In the meantime, Peter, 
James, and John, had become heavy with sleep, and probably 
did not witness the change at its commencement. (3) Moses 
and Elias then appear in glory. (4) The disciples awaking, 
Luke ix. 32, perceive the change in the Lord's person ; — they 
perceive, also, the presence of Moses and Elias in glorified 
forms. (5) The disciples hear the conversation of the Lord 
with Moses and Elias about his approaching (igodov, Luke 



THE TRANSFIGURATION. 171 

ix. 31) exodus from his state of humiliation at Jerusalem. 
(6) The conversation ceases, and Moses and Elias are in the act 
of departing. (7) Peter perceiving it, as we may suppose, makes 
the most extraordinary display of his character on record. He 
ventures to speak, as if unawed by the presence of such glorious 
and majestic forms. (8) Before Peter had done speaking, a 
cloud (probably the Shekinah) suddenly overshadowed them. 
Matthew calls it a light or bright cloud. According to some 
readings, it was a cloud of light. (9) Meantime (that is, while 
Peter was speaking) Moses and Elias disappear, so that the 
presence of the cloud succeeded the presence of Moses and 
Elias. (10) As the cloud enveloped the disciples, they were 
filled with fear. Luke ix. 34. (11) Instantly the voice of the 
Father issues from the cloud, " This is my beloved Son, hear 
ye him." See notes on Matt. iii. 17. As Moses and Elias had 
previously departed, the disciples could not doubt that the 
meaning of the voice was to be applied to Jesus. (12) Hear- 
ing the voice, the disciples fell on their faces. Matt. xvii. 6. 

(13) While they thus lay prostrate, the cloud also disappears ; 

(14) and with the departure of the cloud, Jesus, by an act of his 
own power, as we suppose, resumed his former appearance. 

(15) Going then to his disciples, he touched them, bid them 
rise and not fear. (16) Then they arose, and looking round 
(perhaps to see again those glorious forms, Mark ix. 8) they 
perceived that Moses and Elias had departed, that the cloud 
had disappeared, that Jesus was no. longer transfigured, but 
the same as when he ascended the mountain with them and 
began to pray. 

Thus, a succession of testimonies to the mystery of our 
Lord's person was furnished by this most wonderful transaction. 
The transfiguration of his person into the appearance of such 
majesty, was of itself an overpowering testimony to his glory 
as the Son of Man. Then the appearing of Moses and 
Elias, and their conversing with him about his decease or 
transition from humiliation to his former glory, was another 
amazing testimony to the glory of his nature, as the Son of 
Man. Having accomplished the object of their mission, 
nothing remained to detain them longer, and they departed. 
The crowning testimony of all followed : — it was the testimony 
of the Father himself. In order to this, the mysterious cloud 
appears, as soon as Moses and Elias disappear, and while Jesus 
with the three disciples only, were within it, the voice is 
uttered, " This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. 
Hear ye him." No greater testimony than this could be 
given. Then the cloud also disappears, and the transfiguration 
is passed. 



172 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Many questions are suggested by this wonderful transaction, 
but we must not too curiously inquire into a matter so pro- 
foundly mysterious. There can be no doubt that there were 
reasons for ordering the whole scene exactly in the way it 
occurred, although we should not be able to discover them. We 
may safely believe, however, that none are so probable as those 
which tend most to exalt the majesty and glory of the manhood 
of our blessed Lord. As to the transfiguration itself, we are 
inclined to regard it as a temporary display or revealing of the 
concealed glory of his person ; or, as an outward manifestation 
or uncovering, for a little space, of the inherent glory of his 
manhood. John xvii. 5. See notes on Matt. xiv. 22 — 33. 

We call the transfiguration a miracle, and such it was. But 
his return from his transfigured, or glorified, to his inglorious 
form, is not commonly regarded in the same light. Yet, if we 
consider the essentially inherent glory of our Lord's person, it 
was, perhaps, a greater miracle to conceal it under the humble 
veil of his flesh, and keep it concealed, except so far as his 
miracles occasionally displayed it, from his incarnation to his 
resurrection, than to uncover or reveal it, as he did on the 
occasion which we are considering. We add a few observations 
upon some parts of this narrative. 

Luke ix. 29. "And as he prayed," &c. 

The Evangelist does not mention the subject of his prayer, 
but as he ascended the mountain to make this display of his 
glory, we may reasonably conclude that his prayer had respect 
to it. If this supposition be admitted, it would follow that his 
prayer was the appointed means for that end, and as faith or 
implicit trust in God is the life and energy of prayer, we may 
conclude that the transfiguration of the human person of the 
Lord Jesus was wrought through that means. See John xvii. 5. 
Our Lord's faith, as a man, was perfect. It took hold of God, 
and drew from God whatsoever he asked, John xi. 41, 42, being 
always agreeable to the Divine will. Matt. xxvi. 53, 54. 

Luke ix. 30. "And behold there talked with him two men, 
which were Moses and Elias, who, appearing in glory, spake 
of his decease [e£o#ov,] which he should accomplish \7i)jjpoDv\ 
at Jerusalem." 

The Evangelist is very explicit. Two men, not angels, 
appeared, and these men were Moses and Elias. It was not, 
then, a scenic representation merely, but the real appearing of 
two departed saints, in forms of glory, sent to earth from the 
heavenly world expressly to hold this interview with the 
Saviour. They talked with him in audible, intelligible words, 
which the three apostles heard and understood. The subject of 
their discourse was the same our Lord had, for the first time, 



THE TRANSFIGURATION. 173 

broached to his disciples a week before, namely, his sufferings 
and death at Jerusalem. Moses and Elias knew the purpose 
of the Lord's humiliation, and the place of its termination or 
accomplishment. They spoke of his decease (decession, de- 
cessus, igooov,) or departure, at Jerusalem. The identity of 
the subject confirms the interpretation of the promise before 
suggested. Matt. xvi. 28. It is as though our Lord had assumed 
temporarily his glory, to repeat, in Peter's hearing, the very 
things at which that apostle had revolted, in order to show him 
how differently these saints regarded them. 

However this may be, we may regard our Lord's brief inter- 
course with these departed saints, as a type, or exhibition on a 
small scale, of the society and intercourse between him and his 
redeemed in his kingdom. In this sense, it was a fulfilment of 
his promise; for it was an open manifestation of himself, 
as Son of Man, in the glory with which he will appear in his 
kingdom. 

Matt. xvii. 4. "Then answered Peter and said, Lord, it is 
good for us to be here. If thou wilt, let us make three taber- 
nacles : one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias." 

Peter evidently regarded his Master as the greater of the 
three glorious persons before him. Whether his glory sur- 
passed that of the others, or whether the manner of their 
address and demeanour convinced him of it, we are not in- 
formed. Nor are we told how he could know one departed 
saint from another. The fact only is recorded, and it seems to 
argue either that the apostles were, for the occasion, gifted with 
new powers of discernment, or that these saints made them- 
selves known to the apostles by some extraordinary power 
which they possessed. 1 Cor. xiii. 12. But the transaction is 
too mysterious to be reasoned about. It belongs to the invi- 
sible world, or rather to the times of the kingdom yet to 
be revealed. 

We cannot leave this passage without calling the reader's 
attention again, for a moment to the character of the apostle. 
He was in a scene of unearthly glory. Before him stood the 
Son of Man, attended by the greatest of the prophets, and all 
three attired with the splendour of the heavenly world. Who 
but Peter would dare to utter a voice or mingle his words with 
theirs in such a scene ! It is obvious to remark that he neither 
appreciated the nature nor the object of the transaction, nor the 
character nor condition of the persons before him. Evidently 
he was awe-struck and bewildered. Luke ix. 33 ; Mark ix. 6. 
In that there is no marvel. The marvel is that he should speak 
at all. The character of Peter, in this respect, is unique. No 
such record as this is made of any other man. 



174 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. . 

One observation more upon the whole of this passage, Matt, 
xvii. 1 — 8," and the instruction it was intended to convey. We 
have eye-witnesses of the sufferings and death of the Lord 
Jesus; eye-witnesses of his person after his resurrection; eye- 
witnesses of his ascension ; and eye-witnesses of his glorified 
person, and of the manner of his intercourse with the saints in 
glory ; but not in this order : for the Divine purpose did not 
permit of the Lord's return to the earth after his final ascen- 
sion, until he should come in his kingdom. Acts iii. 21. Hence 
he appeared in his glory for a little space, during the period of 
his humiliation, and two of the most eminent saints of the 
former dispensation were sent to hold converse with him, in 
the presence of three of his disciples, in order that the Church 
might have, through their testimony, out of order and before 
the appointed time, an example or outward manifestation of 
the kingdom, and of the hope to which his elect people are 
called. In this view of the transfiguration, it was a most 
gracious provision for the comfort and encouragement of the 
Church in her pilgrimage through this world. See Heb. xii. 2, 
22, 23 ; xiii. 13, 14 ; 1 Pet. i. 10—18. For by thus teaching 
the mystery of our Lord's glorification in connection with the 
mystery of his death, it marvellously joined the sufferings of 
the cross with the kingdom and the crown. 

Matt. xvii. 9. " And as they came down from the moun- 
tain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision [what things 
they had seen, Mark ix. 9] to no man, until the Son of Man be 
risen [again] from the dead." 

From this verse we infer that the instruction to be derived 
from the transfiguration was designed for the Church. No 
purpose connected with our Lord's personal ministry among 
the Jews was to be served by it. We may observe also that 
the Lord's resurrection from the dead was the epoch, very 
nearly, of his entering permanently into his glory, Luke 
xxiv. 26, so that the injunction in effect was, not to speak of 
this temporary glorification of the Lord's person so long as he 
continued in his state of humiliation, nor until he was ready to 
pour out the spirit of glory upon his followers.* We have no 

* The author of an interesting little treatise, lately published by the Pres- 
byterian Board of Publication, entitled, "The Last Days of Jesus," supposes 
the mountain in Galilee, mentioned in Matt, xxviii. 16, was the mountain on 
which the Lord was transfigured, and that the appearance in Galilee "was a 
substantial reproduction of the transfiguration scene." In this way he accounts 
for the two opposite effects produced: " some worshipped and some doubted." 
In this conjecture, we think, the author mistakes the object of the Saviour's 
appearance after his resurrection, which was to establish the reality of 
the fact of the resurrection of the very body of flesh which was crucified, 



THE TRANSFIGURATION. 175 

evidence that the disciples revealed the secret until after the 
day of Pentecost, but one use they then made of it may be 
learned from the second epistle of Peter, the leading doctrine 
of which is the second coming of the Lord. 

Both the vision, or what they had just seen, and the rising 
from the dead, are here predicated of the Son of Man. It was 
the glory of his manhood which they had seen in the transfigura- 
tion, and it was as Son of Man that he was to rise from the 
dead and ascend into heaven, John vi. 62, and thereupon to 
enter permanently into the glory in which they had just seen 
him. The prohibition amounts to this: that the disciples were 
not to speak of this temporary glorification of the Son of Man, 
so long as he should continue in his state of humiliation. Why 
this injunction was made, we can only conjecture. But the 
injunction itself proves that no use could be made of the vision, 
consistently with the Divine plan, during our Lord's personal 
ministry among the Jews; and the implied permission to speak 
of it after his resurrection, shows that the instruction it con- 
veyed was intended for the Church. It is not probable that the 
three disciples at that time understood either the motives for 
secresy, or when, or by what means, they would be absolved 
from it. For Mark, ix. 10, observes that, though they kept it 
faithfully among themselves, they did not so much as under- 
stand what the rising of the Son of Man from the dead could 
mean. See John xx. 9. 



and for that purpose alone St. Paul uses it, 1 Cor. xv. 5, 6, the evidence of 
which would be impaired by transfiguration. Besides it seems impossible that 
St. Peter would refer to the transfiguration in the special manner he does, 
2 Pet. i. 16 — 18, if the same transaction had been repeated afterwards in the 
presence of the whole body of (or more than five hundred of) the disciples. 
If the Lord had been twice transfigured, there would be the same reason for 
recording both, and we cannot give any reason why the last should be myste- 
riously concealed, and the first be circumstantially recorded. It may be suffi- 
cient to say, however, that this opinion or conjecture is without evidence, and 
the estimable author referred to, it may be presumed, regarded it in that 
light. 



176 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 



CHAPTER V. 

The coming of Elias. — Casting out Demons. — The Apostles' want of Faith for 
Miracles. — The Faith for working Miracles. — Jesus as Son of Man and as 
Christ. — Jesus as Son of Man and as Messiah. — Christ's Kingdom as Mes- 
siah. — Christ's paying Tribute — The Apostles ask, Who shall be greatest? — 
Those like little Children to be greatest. — Little Children saved. — The Son of 
Man came to save the Lost. — Contending Brethren to be Reconciled. — Sense 
of the word Church. — Binding and Loosing. — The Discipline of the Church. — 
The Regeneration, — The New Heavens and the New Earth. — The Apostles to 
sit on Thrones. — All Believers to receive Rewards. — Christ foretells his Cruci- 
fixion. 

Matthew xvii. 10. "And his disciples asked him, saying, 
Why then say the Scribes, that Elias must first come?" 

This verse should be read, or at least be interpreted, with the 
8th verse. Thus: "And when they had lifted up their eyes, 
they saw no man, save Jesus only. And his disciples asked 
him, saying, Why then say the Scribes that Elias must first 
come?" This question was suggested by the disappearance of 
Elias, and it implies a doubt whether the doctrine of the Scribes 
was true. The disciples knew that Jesus was the Messiah. The 
transfiguration proved it beyond the possibility of a doubt. 
Elias had just appeared' to Jesus, but he had departed, and 
Jesus was now returning to his ministry among the people. 
Besides, if this brief appearance of Elias could be considered 
the "coming" taught by the Scribes, still Elias did not come 
first. How then could the doctrine of the Scribes be true? 
Such was the reasoning, as we suppose, suggested by the 
vision. 

The reply of our Lord to the question, confirmed this doc- 
trine of the Scribes, and at the same time vindicated his title 
to the Messiahship. 

Matt. xvii. 11. "And Jesus answered and said unto them, 
Elias truly cometh first, [as the Scribes say,] and [when he 
shall come] he will restore all things." 

As if he had said: "Nothing that you have seen or heard 
contradicts, or conflicts with this doctrine of the Scribes. For, 
at the coming of which they speak, Elias will really appear to 
this people, and restore all things to their former state; and 
this is a note or mark by which the coming of Elias, foretold by 
the prophets, may be certainly known. The coming of Elias at 
my transfiguration was designed for an altogether different pur- 
pose. It was not foretold by any prophet, nor have the Scribes 
any idea of the coming of Elias, which you have seen. Nor 
must you even speak of it to them, or to any other person, until 
after my ministry to this people shall be ended." 



THE COMING OF ELIAS. 177 

This part of our Lord's answer, then, had respect to the 
futurity of the nation, and by it he taught the disciples that 
the doctrine of the Scribes, so considered, was true. They had 
visible evidence that all things had not been restored, and, con- 
sequently, that the appearing and departing of Elias, which 
they had witnessed, without so much as showing himself to the 
people, nor to them except for a few moments, could not be 
the coming of Elias taught by the Scribes. But, if our Lord 
had concluded his answer with these words, the perplexity of 
the disciples would have been increased; for, how then could 
he be the Messiah, if the doctrine of the Scribes were true, 
seeing that Elias had not yet appeared and restored all things ? 
Would not the Lord's answer have been equivalent to a confes- 
sion that he was not the Messiah, although the vision proved 
that he was, and the voice of the Father commanded them to 
obey him as such ? 

To anticipate any doubt which might arise from a simple con- 
firmation of the doctrine of the Scribes, he added: 

Matt. xvii. 12. "But I say unto you, that Elias is come 
already and they knew him not, but have done unto him what- 
soever they listed." 

By these words our Lord vindicates his Messiahship, and 
reconciles the teachings of the vision with the doctrine of the 
Scribes. Elias had come in person, but not to restore all things. 
Yet why should he come for any purpose, if Jesus were not the 
Messiah ? Of this coming of Elias, the Scribes neither knew 
nor taught anything. Further : John the Baptist had so far 
fulfilled the office of Elias as to vindicate his title to the Mes- 
siahship, and that, too, consistently with the sense of these 
Scriptures from which the Scribes derived their doctrine. Isaiah 
xl. 3; Mai. iii. 1. 

Yet John did not restore all things. His ministry was not 
only unsuccessful, but he suffered at their hands. How then 
could John be the Elias who shall restore all things at his com- 
ing? The disciples must have felt that something was wanting 
to make the explanation complete ; but they acquiesced in it as 
satisfactory upon the ground of the vision and the authority of 
their Master; for he did not enter into any elucidation of his 
meaning, much less explain how it could be that Elias was yet 
to come and restore all things, and yet had already come and 
been rejected and put to death by the nation. 

The truth is, the disciples were unable, at that time, to com- 
prehend the explanation of the matter. They could not believe, 
or even conceive, that the Messiah would be rejected and put to 
death. Matt. xvi. 22; Mark ix. 32; Luke ix. 45; xviii. 34. 
They knew not what he meant by the saying, "till the Son of 
23 



178 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Man be risen from the dead." Mark ix. 10; John xx. 9. Con- 
sequently they thought of the Lord's advent at that time as 
his successful and only advent. Could they have conceived of 
two advents of the Messiah — the first to suffer, and the second 
to reign — the solution of any doubt arising from the Lord's 
answer, would have been easy. It would have been obvious to 
conclude that each advent might, in the Divine purpose, require 
a harbinger ; and thus the doctrine of the Scribes concerning 
the future coming and successful ministry of Elias, would be 
consistent with the divine mission of John and the Messiahship 
of our Lord. It is proper to add, that the prophecies concern- 
ing John the Baptist and Elias, Isa. xl. 3; Mai. iii. 1; iv. 5, 6, 
are couched in such terms that they may be applied to one or 
two forerunners; or, in other words, so that John might be 
concealed, if we may so express it, under the drapery of Elias. 
Certain it is, our Lord did not say John was really Elias, (juxta 
fidem corporis, to use Jerome's words;) but, that he fulfilled the 
office of Elias at that time, and in that sense might be called 
Elias, as has already been shown in the preceding notes. See 
notes on John i. 22, 23; Matt, iii. 1, 3; xi. 2—15. 

Matt. xvii. 12. " Likewise shall also the Son of Man suffer 
of them." 

By these words our Lord again foretells his rejection by the 
nation, linking the issue of his own ministry with that of John's. 
Mark, ix. 13, represents him as saying that John's sufferings 
were predicted by the prophets. But by which of them, and 
where ? This is considered by some commentators a point of 
difficulty. Some have resorted to the expedient of transposing 
the words " as it is written of him," in the end of the 13th 
verse, so as to make them the third clause. "But I say unto 
you, that Elias is indeed come, as it is ivritten of him, and they 
have done unto him whatsoever they listed." See Wliitby and 
Scott, But there is no ancient version or MS. which justifies 
the transposition. Euthymius says that Isaiah predicted the 
sufferings of John, but he does not cite the place. In the mar- 
gin, the 49th chapter of Isaiah is referred to, but Jansenius 
[Harmony, 502, Col. 2) found nothing in that chapter which he 
could so interpret.* 

* According to some MSS., and the Yulgate and Syriac versions, the 12th 
verse of Mark ix. should be read thus : " Elias verily cometh first and restoreth 
all things, and (as it has been written, Kahug yr)fA7rrsu, of the Son of Man) that 
he may suffer many things and be set at nought;" that is, Kctba? is read instead 
of nm, and the whole phrase may then be read parenthetically. See Gries- 
bach, Knappius, Mill, Beausobre and L'Enfant's version. Adopting this read- 
ing, the verse may be paraphrased thus: "And he answered and told them, 
Elias indeed cometh before the Christ, as the Scribes teach ; and at his coming 
he will restore all things. But Elias cometh also that he may suffer, and be 
set at nought, as it has been written (**6&>f yrypasnau) of the Son of Man. This 



THE COMING OF ELIAS. 1(9 

The true explanation appears to be, that the person and 
ministry of our blessed Lord were so bound together in the Di- 
vine purpose, with the person and ministry of John, so far as 
they respected that people at that time,. in their national capa- 
city, that whatsoever was written expressly of the rejection of 
the Lord Jesus, as the Messiah, was virtually written of John 
as his herald; and hence it is that our Lord, in this passage, 
Mark ix. 13, combined and compared, in the same breath, John's 
rejection and suffering with his own ; alleging, as he did, that 
such was the sense of the prophecies. See the notes on Matt, 
xi. 2—15; iii. 3; Luke iii. 20, 21. 

Matt. xvii. 11. " And restore all things." 

At the time our Lord addressed these words to the three 
apostles, the things to be restored or the desolations to be 
repaired did not appear. The Jewish Commonwealth was still 
in existence ; the country and cities, though subject to the 
Roman power, were flourishing. The Levitical worship was 
observed; they had their gorgeous temple, their synagogues, 
their teachers, and rulers. Their State was yet to become one 
vast ruin. The people were yet to be scattered among all 
nations, as the necessary consequence in the Divine plan of the 
smiting of their true Shepherd, Matt. xxvi. 31, and be sub- 
jected to a long and galling captivity, during which great diver- 
sities would be wrought in their character.* From this dis- 
persion they were to be restored and reconstituted into a Com- 
monwealth again, before the work of Elias could begin. Both 
Peter (Acts iii. 21) and James (Acts xv. 16,) after they received 

the Scribes do not teach, for they do not understand the prophecies they under- 
take to explain. Moreover I say unto you that Elias has indeed already come, 
and they knew him not, and what they listed, that they did to him; as it is 
virtually written of him in the prophecies concerning the Messiah. In like 
manner, the Son of Man is about to suffer by their hands." 

These last words pointed so plainly to John the Baptist, that our Lord's 
allusion could not be mistaken. Matt. xvii. 13. Still, the mystery was not 
cleared up to the apprehension of the apostles, for the reasons suggested 
above; for they were not at that time capable of understanding how much was 
involved in "the restitution of all things," nor the means through which so great 
an event was to be accomplished. 

* It is plain from the question the disciples put to the Lord at his last 
interview with them, "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom to 
Israel?" Acts i. 6, they had no idea that the Roman power was yet to be exerted 
to the utter ruin of their Commonwealth, and bring them into a captivity, 
which was to endure more than twenty-five times longer than their captivity 
under the kings of the ancient Babylon ; and it may be observed that the Jews 
in general so construed their Scriptures that they saw predicted in them but 
one captivity under one Babylon — but one return from Babylon — one advent of 
Elias — one advent of Messiah, and that his advent of glory and power in his 
kingdom. Whereas, in fact, two oppressing Babylons were foretold, and two 
returns from captivity, two advents of Elias, and two advents of Messiah ; yet 
but one kingdom. 



.180 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

the gift of inspiration, refer to this restitution in which Elias 
is to perform a part, as future. The apostle James represents 
it, on the authority of the prophecy of Amos, ix. 11, 12, as 
following the work of taking out of the Gentiles an elect peo- 
ple for Christ, Acts xv. 16 ; that is, the present dispensation 
of the Gospel among the Gentiles for the gathering and com- 
pletion of the Church. 

But we suppose, and so understand the apostle, that the pro- 
phecy of Amos has respect rather to the spiritual upbuilding 
of Israel, than to the rebuilding of their wasted cities and the 
reconstruction of their political or national State. The restora- 
tion of Israel to their land, according to the Scriptures, is to 
be brought about by other means than the ministry of Elias. 
Isa. lxi. 4; Deut. xxviii. 49 — 66; xxx. 1 — 6; Isa. xi. ; xlix. 
22, 23; lx.; lxi. 4 — 7; Jer. xxxiii. 5 — 8; xxxi.; Ezek. xxxiv., 
xxxvi., xxxvii., xxxviii., xxxix. ; Hos. iii. 4, 5; and many 
other places. Elias will not, as we conceive, have anything to 
do in the preparatory work of their political restoration. At 
his coming, he will find Israel, to a considerable extent, though 
perhaps not wholly, restored to their land, their cities rebuilt, 
and their State reconstructed, and the people endeavouring, 
perhaps, to worship God according to the law of Moses. In 
these circumstances we can conceive there will be occasion for 
the ministry of some great prophet, to be attended with greater 
power than John's was. Mai. iv. 5, 6. 

The question concerning the future mission of Elias seems, 
therefore, to be intimately, if not inseparably, connected with 
the restoration of Israel to the land God gave to Abraham. 
If the Scriptures teach that Israel will be thus restored, we 
can perceive no reason why God should not send them a 
prophet after their restoration, endued with powers which shall 
insure, Mai. iv. 5, 6, the success of his ministry. And if he 
sent Elias in any sense before our Lord entered on his ministry 
of humiliation, why should he not send Elias (or an Elias) to 
them after their restoration ? There appears to be no more 
reason for understanding the Scriptures relating to the future 
coming of Elias figuratively, than'there is of understanding the 
prophecies relating to the restoration of Israel figuratively. 
Yet many persons are ready to admit the latter who deny the 
former. But if the prophecies concerning their restoration 
signify nothing more than their conversion to the Gospel, and 
their being gathered into Christian Churches in the lands where 
they now dwell, the principles of interpretation by which we 
reach such a conclusion, would justify us in understanding the 
prophecy concerning the sending of Elijah, Mai. iv. 5, 6, as 
meaning nothing more or different from the outpouring of the 






THE COMING OF ELIAS. 181 

Holy Spirit upon that people in their dispersed and dissociate 
condition. What need would there then be of the coming of 
Elias in person ? What would be the use of his ministry ? 
What would he have to restore ? Where would he appear ? 
Where would he find all Israel ? The field of his mission would 
be the world. Again: Would he find the people converted? 
If so, why need Elias be sent to them in person ? Would he 
find them unconverted ? It is the work of the Holy Spirit to 
convert men during this dispensation by means of the gospel 
ministry. Why then should Elias be sent with the power of 
the same Spirit to supersede the ordinary ministry of preach- 
ing and the appointed means of grace ? Such are the specu- 
lative questions suggested by the spiritualizing scheme of 
interpretation. 

On the other hand, if we adopt the conclusion that Israel 
will be restored to their land, at the termination of this dis- 
pensation of the Gospel and the proximate coming of the Son 
of Man, none of these questions can arise. For, entertaining 
this view, we should expect to see the wasted cities of Israel 
literally rebuilt— -their now empty land actually filled with 
people — its vales, and hills, and mountains cultivated again, 
and places for the worship of God erected. In one word, we 
can admit, without hesitation, that all the prophecies relating 
to what that people will be and do, or to what God will do for 
them (including even this prophecy of sending Elijah to them,) 
will be literally and punctually fulfilled. And as they have 
respect to a future dispensation of God's government over the 
world, it does not concern us of the Gentiles now to contend for 
a spiritual interpretation of them, as though they concerned 
the Christian Church, any more than it concerned the Jews of 
our Lord's day to know what God would do for or with the 
Gentiles after the Levitical dispensation expired. The fact 
that many Christian writers have done so, has been the occa- 
sion of throwing obscurity on other points of practical concern 
and even of serious error. Indeed, it is not possible, as we 
conceive, to reach such a result except by principles and modes 
of reasoning which leave no fact secure from cavil, no doctrine 
from perversion, no part of the Bible safe from the attacks of 
neologians and infidels. 

Matt. xvii. 14—21. (Mark ix. 14—27 ; Luke ix. 37—42.) 

Verse 16. " And I brought him to thy disciples, and they 
could not cure him." 

Yet the Lord had given these disciples power over unclean 
spirits without exception, to cast them out; and power to heal 
all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. Matt. x. 1, 8. 
Why, then, could they not cast out the unclean spirit on this 



182 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

occasion; they had exerted the power successfully before. 
Mark vi. 13. Why could they not do so now? This was the 
question the disciples themselves put to their Master, after 
they had retired with him from the crowds,. verse 19. He 
ascribed their failure to their unbelief, verse 20. Yet when he 
sent them forth to preach the kingdom, their faith was not 
made a condition for the successful exercise of the powers con- 
ferred. Even Judas is not excepted from this grant of miracu- 
lous power, yet no one can suppose he had any real faith or 
holiness. John vi. 71 ; xii. 6. Why, then, was faith necessary 
on this occasion? We suggest the following answer to these 
inquiries : 

The miraculous powers with which the twelve apostles had 
before been invested, were conferred with an especial view to 
the mission on which they were then sent, and were confined to 
that mission. The special design of this gift of powers was to 
authenticate the proclamation they were commanded to make. 
Matt. x. 7. So long as they were engaged in that mission, we 
do not suppose they failed, or even could fail, in any attempt 
to cure a disease, or cast out a demon of any kind ; because a 
failure would have impaired the evidence of their proclamation. 
The Divine honour and power were chiefly concerned in this 
measure. It was God's testimony to the nation of the near 
approach of his kingdom, and his own exhibition of the pre- 
appointed evidence of the fact. Steadily, and with unerring 
effect therefore, the power of the name of Jesus, when invoked 
in execution of his command, see Matt. xii. 27, overcame all 
the power of the enemy, without prayer or fasting, and even 
irrespectively of faith, either in those who received the benefit 
of the miracles, or in the apostles who performed them. But 
the apostles, as we learn from Mark vi. 30, returned from that 
mission at the death of John the Baptist, and it does not appear 
that they were afterwards sent forth to preach the kingdom 
during our Lord's personal ministry. The special object of 
this extraordinary gift of power having been accomplished, the 
gift itself was withdrawn ; that is to say, they were put back 
into the condition they were in, before they were sent forth to 
proclaim the kingdom. 

It is true that after the death of John the Baptist, seventy 
other disciples were invested with similar powers, Luke x. 1 — 9, 
in order to qualify them for another special mission. Here 
it should be observed, the twelve apostles were sent to all the 
cities of Israel without exception. Matt. x. 6, 23. The seventy 
disciples, on the other hand, were sent only to those cities and 
places whither the Lord himself would come, Luke x. 1. This 
is a difference important to be noticed. The apostles were sent 



THE APOSTLES' WANT OF FAITH FOR MIRACLES. 183 

to proclaim the kingdom to the whole nation. Every city and 
place of Israel was within the scope of their mission. The 
seventy disciples were sent before the Lord to prepare his way, 
and by their preaching and miracles to incline the minds of the 
people to receive him. It was a gracious means designed to 
prevent, if possible, the rejection of himself as the Son of Man 
and the Saviour of the world, by any to whom he should after- 
wards personally come. The seventy were commanded to 
repeat and confirm the proclamation the twelve apostles had 
made, Luke x. 9, 11, for the kingdom was still nigh to them as 
individuals composing the nation, although it had been virtually 
rejected by the nation itself, by the rejection of John the 
Baptist. The power conferred on the seventy disciples, like 
that conferred on the twelve apostles, appears to have been 
unqualified, and in no respects dependent on their faith. Luke 
x. IT. 

Apart, then, from a special design or purpose connected 
with our Lord's official relations or functions, either as Messiah 
or Son of Man, we do not suppose that any of the apostles or 
disciples had power to work miracles, except through faith in 
him; but with faith, some who did not join themselves to the 
company of the disciples, could cast out devils in his name. 
Luke x. 49 ; Mark ix. 39. And herein lies the force of our 
Lord's remark, when that fact was mentioned to him by John : 
" There is no man which shall do a miracle in my name, that 
can {duvYjOZTai, shall be able to) lightly speak evil of me, — 
because his faith, through which he alone can receive such 
power, is a proof that he is one of mine." Mark ix. 39; 
Luke ix. 50. 

These considerations open to us the actual condition of the 
apostles, in respect to miraculous powers, during our Lord's 
personal ministry. From the time of their call until the time 
they were commissioned and sent forth to preach the kingdom, 
they had not power to perform miracles, except through faith ; 
and it does not appear that they attempted, during this period 
of their discipleship, to perform a miracle on any occasion. 
From the time they were sent forth to preach the kingdom, 
until their return from that mission at the death of John the 
Baptist, they had the power to perform, in execution of their 
mission, miracles of healing and miracles of power over demons ; 
but this power, so to speak, was appended or made appurtenant 
to the commission given them, and ceased when that commission 
was fully executed. From that time onward to the close of our 
Lord's personal ministry, they had not the power to perform a 
miracle, except through faith in him ; and the power was not 
conferred on them again until after our Lord's final ascension, 



184 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

when they received the gifts of the Holy Spirit, and among 
others, the gift of the faith, which at this time they had not. 

Bearing these considerations in mind, we return to the text 
before quoted. The nine disciples whom the Lord left behind, 
when he ascended the mountain, failed through their want of 
faith in Jesus, notwithstanding the many proofs he had given 
them of his Divine nature and power. The wonderful works 
they had themselves done by his command, to say nothing of 
the other proofs he had given them of his nature and attributes, 
should have wrought faith in them, if indeed faith could be pro- 
duced by evidence of the most powerful and convincing kind. 
Hence the severity of our Lord's reproof: "0 faithless and 
perverse generation, (addressing his disciples,) how long shall 
I be with you? How long shall I bear with you?" They 
attempted the miracle, relying, it is probable, on the success 
they had while executing the commission they had lately ful- 
filled. Evidently they were surprised by their failure. The 
tone of their question indicates it. No doubt, at the commence- 
ment of their mission, they were surprised at their success, 
Luke x. 17, and the Lord, without explaining to them why the 
powers formerly conferred upon them had ceased, adapts his 
answer to the condition in which they actually were at that 
time, in which also they were to continue, until they should be 
sent forth again upon a wider mission after his ascension, with 
the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the gift of true faith. 

Matt. xvii. 19, 20. "Then came the disciples to Jesus 
apart, and said, Why could we not cast him out ? And Jesus 
said unto them, Because of your unbelief: For verily I say 
unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard-seed, ye shall 
say unto this mountain, [meaning, perhaps, the mountain from 
which he had just descended,] Remove hence to yonder place, 
and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto 
you." 

This is a difficult passage to explain. The difficulty is to 
determine what our Lord meant by "faith as a grain of mustard- 
seed." We have many examples of persons who sought the 
Lord for healing, with faith sufficient to receive the benefit they 
sought; yet we have no reason to suppose they had the faith 
requisite to perform a miracle in his name. The father who 
besought him on this occasion is an example. Mark ix. 23, 24. 
Had he the faith- which our Lord described, and could he have 
ejected the foul spirit from his child? Had the apostles less 
faith than this father? That the father had some faith is 
evident. Mark ix. 23, 24. Is all faith of the same kind? Or 
is there one kind of faith sufficient to receive a blessing from 
the Saviour, but not sufficient to impart or convey a blessing 



THE APOSTLES' WANT OF FAITH FOR MIRACLES. 185 

from the Saviour to another person, while there is another kind 
of faith sufficient for both these purposes ? 1 Cor. xiii. 2. 

That there is some ground for such distinctions may be 
inferred from the fact before stated, and also from the cessation 
of miracles in the Church; for otherwise the cessation of miracles 
would prove the utter extinction of faith, and consequently, of 
the Church itself. Let us adopt the distinction for a moment, 
and proceed to consider how far it will serve to explain this 
passage. The apostles were applied to on this occasion as the 
known disciples and ministers of the Lord Jesus. It is not 
improbable that the father who brought his child to them, had 
seen or heard of the miracles they had performed, verse 16, and 
they essayed to act, as they acted before, in that character. 
They failed in this attempt, because they had not the faith, as 
his ministers, {actively) to fulfil the functions of their office. If 
we consider our Lord's answer, in verse 17, as addressed to the 
apostles in their ministerial character, and intended as a 
reproof to them, we may find an intimation in it of the 
deficiency with which they were especially chargeable. " How 
long shall I be with you? how long shall I bear with you?" 
As if he had said, "Must I for ever remain with you perform- 
ing such signs and wonders as you have seen, which demon- 
strate the glory of my person and the greatness of my power ? 
Will ye never learn to know who I am, and to believe in me as 
I am ? What other signs and wonders must I show you, if 
those which you have seen do not convince you ?" It is evi- 
dent they did not properly appreciate the evidence they had of 
his glory and majesty, and consequently their conceptions of 
his nature and offices were low and grovelling. They had no 
clear apprehension of his Deity, or of his power and glory as 
Son of Man and Lord of the world. This deficiency unfitted 
them for his active service as stewards and dispensers of his 
Divine powers. To serve in this capacity they must needs have 
a faith founded upon a clear apprehension of the nature, attri- 
butes, and glorious majesty of their Master, as God-Man- 
Messiah. But his incarnate and outwardly humble condition, 
or the veil of his flesh, as the apostle expresses it, Heb. x. 20, 
concealed the inherent and essential glory of his person almost 
as effectually from them as it did from the masses of the people, 
and the veil continued until the cloud at last concealed his body 
from their sight, on the day of his final ascension. Even Peter, 
James, and John, who were witnesses of the transfiguration, 
are not to be excepted from this remark. John xiii. 36, 38 ; 
Mark x. 35 ; xiv. 50, 71 ; Luke xxii. 32 ; Matt, xviii. 3. 

If we may adopt this view of the passage, the faith which 
our Lord spoke of, had respect to the powers of his kingdom, 
24 



186 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

and to the apostles as his ministers in his kingdom, and dis- 
pensers or channels for the dispensation of those powers. Such 
faith is of too high a nature to be produced or wrought in man, 
as he now is, by mere evidence. It is the product of the Holy 
Spirit's power alone. Accordingly on the day of Pentecost the 
apostles received it, Acts iii. 16, in such measure as the Divine 
purposes at that time required. But the full exhibition of the 
power of faith, as we may infer from the example our Lord 
gives in this passage, (comp. 1 Cor. xiii. 2,) is not to be expected 
during this order of things. The faith which feeds and sus- 
tains the Church now, is more like the faith of the father who 
besought the Saviour to heal his child, Mark ix. 22, 24, than 
the active energizing principle which the Saviour describes and 
will give to those whom he will make partners in his throne. 
Rev. iii. 21. More adequate and realizing views of the majesty 
and glory of the Lord, would, no doubt, impart unwonted 
energy to the faith of the Church even in this dispensation ; 
but whether such views will be attained before the coming of 
the Lord, depends wholly upon the operations of the Holy 
Spirit, for which we can only pray, with such faith as we now 
have. 

Matt. xvii. 21. "Howbeit this kind" [of demons, or this 
kind or order of beings called demons] " goeth not out but by 
prayer and fasting." 

It seems extraordinary that our Lord, after ascribing such 
power to faith, should seem to admit that any kind of foul 
spirits could not be overcome by it. It seems extraordinary 
also, that he should ascribe to prayer and fasting greater 
powers than those he had ascribed to faith. Yet these are 
deductions which some make from the text. In order to 
interpret this passage we must rightly appreciate our Lord's 
position as a teacher of such men as the apostles were at that 
time. Their mistaken views on some points, and their utter 
ignorance of coming and even impending events, have already 
been frequently alluded to. In conveying instruction to them 
he took them as they were, and expressed himself in such terms 
as were best suited to their extremely limited powers of appre- 
hension. Had he said to them, in plain language, that they 
were about to pass into a new dispensation, entirely different 
from that then existing, in which they would be subjected to a 
new discipline, and receive new influences ; and that this dis- 
pensation was to be introduced by his crucifixion, death, resur- 
rection, and ascension into heaven, which would be followed by 
the mission of the Holy Spirit, they would not have understood 
him ; for they could not so much as conceive of his rejection 
and death. Such sayings "would have been hid from them, 



THE FAITH FOR WORKING MIRACLES. 187 

neither would they have known the things which were spoken." 
Luke xviii. 34. 

Our Lord, therefore, did not take this method, although his 
allusion, in the words under consideration was, as we conceive, 
to the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, which he denotes by one 
of its adjuncts, or ordinances. Fasting was not a part of the 
discipline which our Lord appointed to his disciples. Indeed 
it was his will and appointment that they should not fast while 
he remained with them. Matt. ix. 14, 15; Mark ii. 19, 20. 
But when he should be taken away from them, that is after his 
ascension, then it was his will that they should fast as well as 
pray. The allusion, though it may seem to us obscure, is to 
post-ascension times, and the new order of tilings and discipline 
which would then be established ; then, through prayer and 
fasting, they would receive from the Holy Spirit the faith by 
which they would be able to cast out this kind of demons. The 
words of the Saviour are limited to the occasion and the ques- 
tion he was answering ; or the case in hand. He declared the 
cause of their failure in that particular instance; leaving it to 
them to infer that in all cases requiring the exercise of miracu- 
lous power, the want of faith would be followed by the same 
result. 

In confirmation of this interpretation it may be added, that 
it does not appear that any of the apostles did perform any 
miracles after the death of John the Baptist, until they received 
the gifts of the Spirit after our Lord's ascension; and if we 
consider the new posture of the nation in consequence of that 
event, and the change in our Lord's ministry consequent upon 
it, see notes on Matt. xiv. 10, we cannot perceive any reason, 
arising from their official relations to the Lord Jesus, why they 
should. It is probable they were his constant attendants on his 
journeyings from place to place ; and when persons brought 
their sick to be healed, the Lord himself was present to heal 
them. The Evangelists uniformly represent him, and not his 
disciples, as performing the cures. On the occasion in ques- 
tion, nine of the apostles were for a short time separated from 
their Master. It was an extraordinary occurrence, brought 
about by an extraordinary design or occasion. We do not 
know that they were separated as long, at any time afterwards, 
until they fled from him in the garden of Gethsemane. Matt, 
xxvi. 56 ; Mark xiv. 50. 

The passage is regarded by all interpreters as very obscure, 
and the foregoing interpretation, if not satisfactory, may sug- 
gest one which is so. At least it seems preferable to that which 
ascribes the failure of the apostles to the neglect of a practice 
which they were not required at that time to observe — a prac- 



188 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

tice which, for some reason, it was hot proper or possible for 
them to observe. Mark ii. 19. Indeed, if the reader will duly 
consider what has been said in the note on verse 16, and the 
other notes therein referred to, he will not hastily reject this 
interpretation. 

Matt. xvii. 22, 23. "And while they abode in •Galilee, 
Jesus said unto them, the Son of Man [ana "p Ben Adam, Ps. 
viii. 6] shall be betrayed into the hands of men, [D^ra'aa ^TQ 
hidi anashim] and they shall kill him, and the third day he 
shall be raised again." Mark ix. 31. 

It has been already remarked, that our Lord is to be con- 
sidered under three distinct relations, which met and were 
blended in his person. He was the Divine Word, the second 
person of the Trinity, and as such the Maker and Governor of 
the universe. Col. i. 16. He was the Son of Man — the Adam 
of the Covenant, or as St. Paul calls him, the second man — the 
last Adam. 1 jCor. xv. 45, 47. In this character he was and 
is, under God, 1 Cor. xv. 28, the absolute Sovereign and uni- 
versal Lord and Governor of the world. As such he is also 
the High-priest of the world, and the only Mediator between it 
and all its concerns and God. His sovereignty and priesthood 
go together, and because he sustains the one, no other being in 
the universe is capable of sustaining or performing, officially or 
acceptably, the functions of the other. He was also the Mes- 
siah of Israel, and as such, the Christ. But his priestly office, 
though commensurate with his kingly office as Son of Man, was 
by God's covenant with David united to or connected with his 
Messianic office. Hence it was, that although the purpose of 
his first advent was to atone for the sin of the world, 1 John 
ii. 2 ; John i. 29, and redeem the world as his inheritance ; his 
mission at that time was nevertheless confined to Israel. Matt, 
xv. 24 ; x. 5, 6. At his second advent he will come to take 
possession of the world as his kingdom, and to rule over it as 
the Son of Man. Matt. xvi. 27 ; xxv. 31, 32 ; John v. 27 ; 
Heb. ix. 28. See also the notes on Matt. viii. 20, 23—27; 
ix. 4; xiii. 37—43. 

Bearing these distinctions in mind, we observe that our 
blessed Lord, whenever he spoke of his approaching sufferings, 
always designated himself as the Son of Man ; as if the body 
he bore as Son of Man was the sacrifice appointed for him to 
make. Matt. xx. 18, 28; xxvi. 2, 24, 45; xvii. 12; Mark viii. 
31; ix. 31; x. 33, 45; xiv. 21, 41; Luke ix. 22, 44; xxii. 22. 
But his priestly office, to which the act of making sacrifice 
belonged, could not, in the nature of things, as we have shown, 
be inferior to the order of his manhood, see notes on Matt. xvi. 
13, 15; xxi. 28; and the apostle Paul, in Heb. v. 6, 10; vi. 20; 



JESUS AS SON OF MAN AND AS CHRIST. 189 

vii. 16, 21, expressly teaches us that his priesthood was 
according to the order of Melchizedec, the nature of which he 
briefly describes. It was higher than the order of Aaron, and 
distinguished from it in many important respects. Heb. vi., 
vii., viii. It was perpetual in his hands, verse 24 — it was 
according to the power of an endless life, verse 16 — it was 
universal in its scope and effect, verse 25. In all these 
respects it agrees with the nature, attributes, and office of 
Jesus as the Son of Man. 

The apostles, on the other hand, in their epistles, never spoke 
of his suffe±"ings as those of the Son of Man, but as the suffer- 
ings of Christ. Rom. v. 6, 8; viii. 34; 1 Pet. i. 11; v. 1, et 
passim. This difference is remarkable, and cannot be accounted 
for satisfactorily, except by the distinctions before taken 
between the Saviour's relations or offices as Son of Man and 
Messiah, and the nature and objects of the present dispensation 
of the Gospel, of which the apostles were the first ministers, 
and the final dispensation of the restitution of all things. This 
will appear by the following considerations. 

Israel, according to the flesh, were the chosen or elect people 
of God. To them peculiar and very glorious promises were 
made, upon the condition of their obedience. Had they fulfilled 
this condition, or had that generation of Israel to whom the 
Saviour went, received him with true faith, and with the obedi- 
ence of the heart, John i. 11 ; Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Ps. lxxxi. 13 — 16, 
then, indeed, they would have been a peculiar treasure unto 
God above all people — a kingdom of priests, and eminently 
holy above all other nations. Exod. xix. 5, 6. In order to the 
fulfilment of these promises, God graciously covenanted with 
David that the Son of Man — the Adam of the everlasting cove- 
nant, should become incarnate in his race, and the heir of his 
throne, by means of which covenant his universal priesthood 
was knitted or annexed to his office as Messiah. Such was the 
Divine plan ; and although Israel fell, and thereby lost these 
privileges, that plan was not thereby frustrated. Rom. xi. 11 ; 
Matt. xxi. 43. A new dispensation was opened upon the fall 
of Israel, in order to gather out of all nations another elect 
people, who should take the place of Israel according to the 
flesh ; and by becoming the peculiar people of Messiah, become 
also a peculiar treasure unto God and a kingdom of priests. 
1 Pet. ii. 9. Now, the ministry committed to the apostles was 
appointed to gather this elect people for the Lord Jesus, not as 
the Son of Man, (for as such all the nations of the earth are 
his) but as the Messiah of Israel or the Church. HeDce they 
preached him as the Christ, and spoke and wrote only of his 
sufferings as Christ, and not as the Son of Man. 



190 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Yet the gathering of this elect people is not the whole of our 
Lord's redemptive work. As the Son of Man and the patri- 
archal king and priest of the whole world— the true Melchi- 
zedec and king of peace,* he redeemed, by the offering of his 

* Very various opinions have been entertained concerning the person of 
Melchizedec. Some have supposed. he was Shem — others that he was a grand- 
son of Shem ; others that he was a great-grandson, or other descendant, of 
Japhet; others suppose he was Ham; others, still, that he was a righteous and 
peaceful Canaanitish king, cotemporary with Abraham, without pretending to 
determine anything more about him. See Stuart on Heb. vii. 3 ; Excursus 
xiii., and Brown's Dictionary. Other writers have maintained that he was the 
Holy Ghost. Yet others, that he was the Son of God in his Divine nature; 
and still others, that he was Christ himself: which last opinion was rejected by 
Professor Stuart, for the reason that it would force us to adopt the interpreta- 
tion that "Christ is like unto himself," or that a comparison was formally 
instituted by the apostle between Christ and himself — "Cujus mentio est refu- 
tatio." Upon this question it may be remarked, 

(1.) That he was a man, and not God or a divine person of the Trinity, fol- 
lows from the nature of the office of a priest or mediator for man with 
God. Heb. v. 1, 4, 6; Gal. iii. 20; 1 Tim. ii. 5. See Matt. xx. 28; note, 
Mark x. 45. 

(2.) That he was a greater man than Abraham is expressly asserted by the 
apostle. Heb. vii. 7, also 4. He was greater also than the whole Levitical 
priesthood put together, for virtually they all paid him tithes in Abraham, 
according to the reasoning of the apostle. What Canaanitish king could 
answer this description? Abraham had the promises, and was thereby 
distinguished above all his cotemporaries. He was called the friend of God. 
2 Chron. xx. 7; Isa. xli. 1, 8; James ii. 23. He was the greatest mortal man 
of his day. 

(3.) That Melchizedec was not a sinful mortal man, who needed to be 
redeemed himself by a priest of his own order, is proved by the dignity, 
excellency, and enduring nature of his priesthood : for if he were such, it 
would follow, that had he been on earth at the time our Lord offered his body 
as a sacrifice, though a mortal man, of our fallen race, he would have been 
the officiating priest, and performed the act of making the sacrifice, as 
Abraham essayed to do when he laid Isaac on the altar. But the whole 
course of the reasoning of the apostle, Heb. v., vi., vii., as well as our Lord's 
own declaration, John x. 17, 18, renders the things supposed impossible. 

(4.) The description which the apostle gives us of Melchizedec, if we may 
understand him to mean what he says, proves that he was not a man of 
Adam's race. He was without father, without mother,. without any (human) 
genealogy. He had neither beginning of days nor end of life, but was made 
like unto (or conformed unto) the Son of God, by reason, or means, as we 
suppose, of his union with the second person of the Trinity, and consequently, 
eternally a priest without a successor in his office. 

(5.) Again, his name, which must be understood in its full and proper 
import, is descriptive of his person and office. Thus understood, it can belong 
to no being in the universe but the Son of Man — the Ben Adam of the ever- 
lasting covenant. For he only can truly be called the King of righteousness 
and peace, having universal and everlasting dominion over this world. Isa. ix. 6; 
Ps. ii. 6, 12 ; Dan. vii. 14 ; comp. also John viii. 58, with Heb. vii. 4. As the 
absolute Lord of the world, the Son of Man is the only being capable of the 
functions of High Priest of the world, and of Mediator "between it and all its 
concerns and God. As the world, which was his inheritance, had fallen under 
the curse of God, he only could redeem it from apostacy and sin, and restore it 
to allegiance and the Divine favour. 

(6.) David refers to Melchizedec in a prophecy concerning the exaltation of 
Christ as an extraordinary person. Ps. ex. 4: "Jehovah hath sworn, audit 



JESUS AS SON OF MAN AND AS MESSIAH. 191 

body, the world itself, which was from the beginning his right- 
ful possession as the Son of Man. Hence the apostle John, 
1 John ii. 2, speaking in the name of the whole body of the 
elect, or of the universal Church, says, " Who is the propitia- 
tion for our (that is, his elect people's) sins, and not for ours 
only, but also for the whole world"* According to the same 
distinction, we understand an expression of the apostle Paul, 
in 1 Tim. iv. 10, "Who is the Saviour of all men, especially of 
those that believe." 

The only salvation offered to men during this dispensation is 
this great or especial salvation of the elect people, given to 
Christ as his peculiar people, Tit. ii. 14, who are to inherit the 
privileges first conditionally promised to Israel according to the 
flesh, Exod. xix. 5, 6 — called, on account of their subrogation, 
"the Israel of God." Gal. vi. 16. Hence the apostles preached 
Jesus as the Christ, not as the Son of Man. Their commissions 
and all their labours fell within the Messianic office of our 
Lord. His kingdom, as Messiah or the Christ, is, during the 
whole of this dispensation or order of things, the great and the 
only concern. All, to whom the Gospel is preached, are invited 
to embrace this great salvation and enter this kingdom. But 
when this kingdom shall be consummated by the gathering 
to himself of the accomplished aggregate of his elect — that is, 
of all who have been given to him in that relation or character, 
then will he come in his kingdom as the Son of Man, and 



repenteth him not. Thou art a priest for ever, after [according to] the order 
[manner] of Melchizedec." It is true he gives no explanation of his person 
or character. Yet from the manner in which his name is introduced, he was 
of a rank worthy of the Divine persons engaged in the transaction. The oath 
of Jehovah cannot be interpreted of an inconsiderable person or thing. Xor 
can the Messiah in his exaltation be in any of his relations or offices, of the 
rank or order of a mortal man. As observed above, the order of our Lord's 
priesthood could not be inferior to the order of his manhood, and he is the one 
and only man of his own order. He is the head of the new creation — the 
second Adam, and cannot take rank in his person or any of his offices from any 
of our mortal race. 

These considerations might be enforced by an examination of Heb. v., 
vi., vii., but without more, they justify the conclusion {we submit) that the 
Melchizedec who met Abraham and blessed him, Gen. xiv. 18, and brought 
forth bread and wine, the elements employed by the Saviour, at the institution 
of the Supper, was the Son of Man — the Adam to whom the psalmist, Ps. viii., 
ascribes universal dominion. With this view of the question, let the reader 
ponder John viii. 56 — 58 : " Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and 
he saw and was glad." .... "Before Abraham was, I am." We add only, 
that this interpretation is not open to the objection of Professor Stuart, before 
mentioned ; for it amounts to this, that the order of our Lord's priesthood, as 
the Christ or Messiah of Israel, is according to the order of his nature, offices, 
and attributes as the Son of Man. See the notes on Matt. xx. 28. 

* The words, the sins of, are a gloss of the translators, and should be 
omitted. They tend to mislead from the true sense. 



192 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

extend his benignant rule over all the nations of the earth, 
Matt. xxv. 31, and the blessed effect of his redemptive work 
be seen and felt in the restitution of all things. 

The sum of what has been advanced on this topic may be 
thus stated : Our Lord, in speaking of his sufferings as the Son 
of Man, had in view the whole of his redemptive work, not only 
as it respected his elect people belonging to him as Messiah, 
but the world itself and the nations who are to dwell upon it 
during all futurity, which belongs to him as the Son of Man. 
Matt. xiii. 41 ; xxv. 31—34, 40. 

The apostles, on the other hand, speak only of his sufferings 
as Christ, because the ministry which had been committed 
to them had respect only to the kingdom which had been 
given to our Lord, as the seed of David and the Messiah of 
Israel, which must be consummated before his coming into his 
kingdom as the Son of Man. 

This interpretation suggests that our Lord's kingdom as the 
Christ is a kingdom of kings and priests exalted to thrones of 
glory in the world of redemption, Rev. iii. 21 ; i. 6 ; v. 10 
Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke xxii. 29; Rom. viii. 28—30 ; Phil. iii. 21 
1 Thess. iv. 17; 2 Tim. ii. 12; Rom. viii. 17; 1 Pet. iv. 13 
Eph. i. 20, 23 ; 1 Cor. iii. 16 ; vi. 19 ; John xvii. 9, 20, 24, 
constituting, as it were, a vast temple for the indwelling of the 
Holy Spirit. This kingdom is distinct from his kingdom as 
the Son of Man, which is a kingdom over this world and the 
nations and people that shall dwell upon it. Dan. vii. 14 ; Rev. 
xxi. 24 ; Matt. xxv. 31 — 46. But this also is a glorious and 
an everlasting kingdom, which shall not pass away or be 
destroyed, Dan. vii. 14 ; ii. 44, out of which he will cast and 
destroy all things that offend, and them that do iniquity. 
Matt. xiii. 41. 

One observation more : The union of the Divine to the human 
nature of Jesus as the Son of Man, and the incarnation of both 
under the Abrahamic and Davidic covenant, have exalted his 
human nature to the throne of the universe, Rev. iii. 21, and 
his elect people to his own throne as Son of Man, Rev. i. 13, 
comp. with Rev. ri. 26, 27, iii. 21, and so made them also kings 
and priests unto God. Rev. xx. 6 ; v. 10 ; i. 6. Whether, 
therefore, the apostles speak of our blessed Lord as the Son of 
God, or as the Son of Man, or as the Christ, or simply as 
Jesus, they refer to the complexity of his person as God-Man- 
Messiah, the Maker and Redeemer of the world— and the Re- 
deemer of Israel; and they seldom have occasion, as Paul had 
when reasoning about the priesthood of Jesus, to ascribe the 
particular parts of his work discriminately to the particular 
character, relation or office in which he performed them, 



CHRIST'S PAYING TRIBUTE. 193 

because their mission and office fell within and were circum- 
scribed by his mission and offices as the Christ, and the designed 
end and especial purposes of these will be fully attained when 
the elect Church, or the Israel of God, shall be completed, and 
the Lord shall come to receive it to himself. Matt. xiii. 43, and 
see notes on Matt. xii. 8. 

Matt. xvii. 24. " And when they were come to Caper- 
naum, they that received tribute money came to Peter and said, 
Doth not your Master pay tribute?" 

The fact that such a question should be addressed to a fol- 
lower of the Lord, shows how completely his Divine nature was 
concealed under his humanity. The question assumes that he 
was a mere man, and a subject of earthly government. It 
affords a proof of the meekness and quietness of our Lord's 
demeanour, Matt. xii. 19, and of the groundlessness of the 
charge made against him before Pilate by the chief priests and 
rulers of the Jews. Luke xxiii. 2. 
Matt. xvii. 25. " He saith, Yes." 

If we reflect what opportunities this apostle had had of 
knowing his Master's true nature and character, his answer will 
appear more extraordinary than the question. He had wit- 
nessed the power of his will over the winds and the waves. He 
had seen him raise the dead by his voice, feed thousands with a 
few loaves, walk on the sea, and but just before, beheld the 
transfiguration of his person. He had heard the voice of the 
Father acknowledging him as his Son. What impressions 
were these things adapted to make on the mind of this apostle? 
Yet upon being asked, "Doth not your Master pay tribute?" 
"he saith, "Yes." The answer was inconsiderate unless it be 
understood as meaning nothing more, than that it was his 
Master's habit or practice to pay tribute. But in whatever 
sense we are to understand it, our Lord's questioning of him 
was designed to awaken reflection and explain the motive of 
his own conduct if such had been his custom or practice. 

Matt. xvii. 25, 26. "And when he was come into the 
house, Jesus prevented [anticipated] him, saying, What thinkest 
thou, Simon ? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom 
or tribute ? of their own sons or from other persons ? Peter 
saith to him, Of other persons. Jesus saith unto him, Then are 
the sons free." 

It is probable that Peter entered the house to inform the 
Saviour of the presence of the tax collectors, and of their 
demand. But in this he was anticipated. The case put was 
closely analogical. Custom or tribute is both an exaction and 
a duty, from which the sons of earthly kings were exempt. 
The analogy was too obvious to Peter to require an express 
25 



194 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

application. He could not have forgotten the voice from the 
cloud, "This is my beloved Son." Who could exact tribute 
from him or impose on him the duty to pay it ? Has the God 
of the whole earth less power than earthly kings ? The miracle 
recorded in the next verse, in fact proved his exemption; for 
he that could make the fish of the sea his servants, could have 
made all the kings of the earth and their subjects, even the 
earth itself, open and proffer to him their treasures at his will. 

Matt. xvii. 27. But that we may not "offend them, go 
thou to the sea and cast a hook, and take up the fish that first 
cometh up, and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt 
find a piece of money ; that take and give unto them, for me 
and thee." 

The Evangelist does not say that Peter did as he was bid, or 
that he. actually found the piece of money required. He is 
contented with reciting merely the circumstances which led to 
this direction, leaving it to the reader to supply the rest. We 
have no doubt that the apostle executed his Master's command, 
with the success foretold. This miracle had even fewer wit- 
nesses than the transfiguration. We are not informed that any 
other of the disciples heard the direction, or went . with Peter 
to the sea, and saw him cast a hook or take a fish with the 
money in his mouth. Peter, so far as we know, was .the only 
witness of the miracle ; but he no doubt spoke of it to his 
fellow disciples. It taught them, or should have taught them, 
that they could need no other riches than the love and favour of 
their Divine Master. 

The miracle was an example of our Lord's power, as the Son 
of Man, over the fish of the sea, according to Psalm viii. 8, 
and this we suppose is the chief point of instruction. Of all 
the miracles our Lord performed, this is the most difficult for 
fals'e religionists to explain away. " Peter is sent to the sea, 
not with a net, but with a hook ... A net might enclose many 
fishes, a hook could take but one .... A fish shall bring 
him a stater in her mouth ; and that the fish that bites first. 
What an unusual bearer is here ! what an unlikely element to 
yield a piece of ready coin !" Bishop Hall, Nothing short of 
absolute power over the fish of the sea and knowledge of them, 
could have enabled the Saviour to perform this miracle. 

This is the only miracle of the kind mentioned by Matthew, 
and he selected it, as we suppose, because it was the most 
striking illustration of the power of Jesus as Son of Man. At 
the calling of Peter, according to Luke, v. 4 — 10, our 
Lord displayed his power over the fish of the sea, and again, 
according to John, after his resurrection. John xxi. 6 — 11. 
These last were witnessed only by those who were, or were to 



THE APOSTLES ASK WHO SHALL BE GREATEST. 195 

be, apostles, and consequently were a part of their private 
instruction; and although both of them were perfectly con- 
vincing to those who saw them, yet are they more easily evaded 
or explained away by rationalistic interpreters, than the one 
we are considering. For either the fact itself here recorded 
must be denied, or, as Bengel observes, a manifold miracle of 
omniscience and omnipotence must be admitted, (1) That some- 
thing should be caught — capi aliquid ; (2) and that quickly — 
et cito ; (3) that there should be money in a fish — in pisce fore 
pecuniam ; (4) and that in the first fish — eamque in pisce primo ; 
(5) that the sum should be just what was needed — nummum 
fore tanti quantum opus esset ; (6) that it should be in the fish's 
mouth—; fore in piscis ore. Therefore the fish was commanded 
(or constrained) to bring a stater or four-drachm coin, that very 
moment, from the bottom of the sea. 

The miracle illustrates very impressively Psalm viii. 8, before 
referred to, and taken in connection with others before remarked 
upon, shows that we are to understand the words of David lite- 
rally, and in their fullest sense. " Thou madest him to have 
dominion (absolute) over the works of thy hands ; thou hast put 
all things under his feet — all sheep and oxen; yea, and the 
beasts of the field; the fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea; 
and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the sea." 

Matt, xviii. 1. "At the same time came the disciples unto 
Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" 
[of the heavens.] 

Mark informs us, ix. 33, of a dispute which had arisen 
among them, when they were apart from the Lord ; about 
which he questioned them, but they were unwilling, for some 
cause, to mention the. subject of it. Luke, although less par- 
ticular in some respects, represents the Saviour as having come 
to the knowledge of it through his knowledge of their hearts. 
Luke ix. 47. The disciples, it is evident, were confidently 
expecting the coming of their Lord's kingdom at that time ; 
and, as they had been especially chosen to follow him, they 
took it for granted that they all would have distinguished 
places in it. They expected, also, that there would be dis- 
tinctions made between themselves, and the question was, who 
of them should be the greatest. Evidently they supposed, that 
by privately discussing the matter among themselves, when 
Jesus was not immediately present, they could prevent his 
knowing anything about their ambitious aspirations, which 
shows how imperfectly they understood the character of their 
Master. It is important that we should properly appreciate 
the character of the disciples, so as not to overestimate either 
their piety or knowledge, in order that we may properly under- 



196 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

stand our Lord's instructions to them and his method of deal- 
ing with them. No fact is clearer than that the apostles, 
during our Lord's personal ministry, and until they were 
inspired by the Holy Spirit, entertained very limited and very 
erroneous views upon many subjects which, to us, appear too 
plain to be misunderstood. 

Matt, xviii. 2, 3. "And Jesus called a little child unto 
him, and set him in the midst of them" [and having taken him 
in his arms, he said unto them, Mark ix. 36,] " Verily, I say 
unto you, except ye be converted and become as little children, 
ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." 

It is manifest from this verse that the apostles, at that time, 
were very far from being fit for the kingdom of heaven, yet 
they were, excepting Judas, all elected and chosen of God to 
eternal life. Luke x. 20 ; John vi. 70. The mere choice of 
them by the Saviour to be his apostles, and the future stewards 
of the mysteries of the kingdom, included, we may believe, 
their election to eternal life. Yet to Peter, to whom the 
Father had revealed the mystery of the incarnation, the 
Saviour addressed similar words, after foretelling his apostacy : 
"When thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren." Luke 
xxii. 32. On this occasion our Lord impressively taught them, 
that the road to greatness lay in the direction opposite to that 
their eyes were turned to. Their views must undergo a change 
equal to that of transforming a worldly, ambitious man, doting 
on worldly distinctions and glory, into a little child, who cannot 
even understand what such glory and distinctions are, and has 
no thought or desire to possess them. 

What a picture of the kingdom of heaven is here given ! 
Nothing indeed is said directly of the kingdom itself, but only 
of the spirit of its inhabitants. Men must unlearn, as it were, 
their whole education, and be brought back to the simplicity of 
childhood, to have the first qualification for the kingdom of 
God, in which Love is the centralizing or cementing power, 
Col. iii. 14, and Rule is service ; and the highest rule the 
humblest service. John xiii. 14 — 16 ; Mark ix. 35 ; Matt. xx. 
26—28. 

The word (azpo^ri) translated in this place, and also in 
Luke xxii. 32, converted, is not that which is commonly used in 
the New Testament to denote a change of heart, Matt. iii. 2 ; 
iv. 17; xi. 20, 21; xii. 41, or of the mind, see Matt. v. 39; 
vii. 6 ; xvi. 23 ; xviii. 3, yet the circumstances of the occasion, 
and what our Lord did say to them, imply that they needed it. 
And it magnifies the power and goodness of the Saviour that 
he not only bore with his disciples, but kept them from falling 
away from him, notwithstanding their carnal views and unsanc- 



THOSE LIKE LITTLE CHILDREN TO BE THE GREATEST. 197 

tified affections. He had taken them from the humble walks 
of life, and although unlearned, they had derived their notions 
of things from the more elevated classes of their countrymen, 
and no doubt esteemed those things great and desirable, which 
the great men of the nation so esteemed. He taught them 
many things concerning himself which were utterly at variance 
with their expectations, and without the illuminating, convert- 
ing, and strengthening power of the Holy Spirit, he attached 
them to his person — preserved them (the son of perdition only 
excepted) amidst all the scandals and temptations to which they 
were exposed, to the end of his ministry; and then, as it were, 
handed them over to the Holy Spirit to convert, enlighten, 
sanctify, and preserve, till they should seal their testimony with 
their blood. See notes on Acts ii. 1. 

Matt, xviii. 4, 5. "Whosoever, therefore, shall humble 
himself as this little child" [meaning the child he then held in 
his arms, Mark ix. 36, 37,] "the same is greatest in the king- 
dom of heaven ; and whosoever shall receive one such little 
child in my name, receiveth me." Mark adds: "And who- 
soever receiveth me, receiveth not me" [only] "but him" [also] 
"that sent me." Mark ix. 37. 

The primary object of our Lord, on this occasion, was to cor- 
rect the ambitious views of the apostles. He taught them they 
must lay them aside, and become like that little child, in order 
to obtain even an entrance into the kingdom, the chief places of 
which they coveted. But incidentally he taught them also, 
that little children were peculiarly dear to him, and not only 
that, but that little children, like the one he held in his arms 
before them, were, and would be received into the kingdom of 
heaven. This is more plainly declared in Matt. xix. 14 ; Mark 
x. 14 ; Luke xviii. 16. It would be incongruous to say to the 
apostles, that unless they became like little children they should 
not enter into the kingdom, unless little children do enter into 
that kingdom ; for that would imply that they might enter into 
the kingdom by becoming like those who do not enter into it. 
How can it be that the receiving of a little child in Jesus' name 
is receiving of him unless the child is his? Can we have a 
stronger assurance that all children removed by death, before 
the commission of actual sin, are saved ? By nature, indeed, 
they are lost ; otherwise they would not need a Saviour. But 
because they are the Saviour's, the effect of his work is to 
transfer them, at the very beginning almost of their being, 
from the stock or parentage of the fallen Adam to his own 
stock or parentage as the second Adam ; so that their gene- 
alogy from the first shall be reckoned from him. This was a 
great object of his incarnation— so great that it seems to be 



198 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

represented in the 11th verse as the prominent object of his 
coming, which the apostles did not seem to have any conception 
of, Matt. xix. 13; Mark x. 13; Luke xviii. 15, even after he 
had so explicitly declared it, although they might at least have 
conjectured -it from their own Scriptures. See Jer. xix. 3, 5; 
Joel ii. 16 — 18 ; 2 Chron. xx. 13 ; Jonah iv. 9, 11 ; and Numb, 
xiv. 23, in the Septuagint, a passage which is not found in the 
Hebrew text. According to the Divine plan, this world or this 
life, so far as the infant race is concerned, may be compared to 
a nursery ground of the kingdom of heaven ; or rather, taking 
our similitude from the parable in the 12th, 13th, and 14th 
verses — the Father of myriads of worlds is not willing that the 
least and most inglorious of them should perish. On the con- 
trary, he takes infinite pains to recover it ; and not only that, 
but also to recover every individual of the race he planted upon 
it. Such was the scope of the mission of the Son of Man, verses 
11 — 14. He came to repair the ruin of the fall — to restore the 
human family to his kingdom, except so far as personal, actual 
sin, persisted in, without repentance and faith, should prevent. 
But this exception does not embrace infants removed by death 
before actual sin. How extensive, then, and how minute, is the 
plan of redemption ! Who can count the number of the infant 
dead from the beginning? Yet not one of them is overlooked by 
our Father in heaven. He will gather them all into his king- 
dom ; but in what orders or ranks, or with what distinctions, 
depends wholly on his sovereign pleasure. 1 Cor. xv. 40, 42.* 
What our Lord said on this topic amounts to this : None of 
the human race, except little children, can enter into the king- 

* A strong, if not conclusive argument, in support of this exposition, may 
be derived from 1 Cor. xv. 22, compared with Rom. v. 12, 14: "For as in 
Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." — " Wherefore, as by one 
man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon 
all men, for that all have sinned." Death was the penalty of the sin of Adam, 
and to die once is the whole of that penalty ; so that when death hath passed 
once upon an infant, who has committed no actual sin, it has suffered the 
whole of that penalty. In other words, the penalty was not to die and then to 
be raised from the dead through the work of Christ the Second Adam, and then 
to die a second death ; but simply to die once, Heb. ix. 27, on account of the 
sin of the first Adam. But the Son of Man came to reverse that penalty, or 
rather to bear it for men, and bring them to life again by raising them from 
the dead. In this resurrection children, dying in infancy, will have part. 
Will their resurrection be a blessing or a benefit to them? Most certainly. 
But how will it be a blessing or a benefit, if they are raised from the dead only 
to die the second death ? It follows, therefore, from the doctrine of the resur- 
rection of the infant portion of our race, through the work of Christ, that their 
condition in the future state cannot be otherwise than happy, because if it 
were not so, the work of Christ would be the means of increasing the original 
penalty to those who die before they are capable of repentance and faith, and 
even of committing actual sin. This argument is developed and enforced in 
Russel's Treatise on Infant Salvation. 



LITTLE CHILDREN SAVED. 199 

dom of heaven ; that is, none but children, literally such, and 
those who become so like them, that they may be called little 
children. All the saved, therefore, are little children, either 
literally such or made such by Divine grace. It is an inversion 
of the Saviour's meaning, to suppose that he primarily intended 
humble-minded, child-like disciples or followers. Primarily 
he meant babes, little children; and secondarily, his humble- 
minded followers, so like them in disposition that they might 
be regarded as though they were literally such. This interpre- 
tation shows the force of the designation "little children," fre- 
quent in John's Epistles, and once used by Paul, and once also 
by our Lord. John xiii. 33 ; Gal. iv. 19 ; 1 John ii. 1, 18, 28 ; 
iii. 7 ; iv. 4 ; v. 21. 

Matt, xviii. 6. "But whoso shall offend one of these little 
ones, which believe in me, it were better for him that a mill- 
stone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in 
the depth of the sea," 

From his care and love for children, and the Divine purposes 
in regard to them, the Saviour passes to offences or occasions of 
sin given to them by others. As the receiving of them in his 
name is receiving him, so offences against them are offences 
against him, deserving the severest punishment. A large pro- 
portion of our race, some say three-fifths, are removed by death 
before they are capable of committing actual sin, and of course 
before they are capable of being offended in the sense of the 
text. Hence our Lord confines his denunciation to offences 
against those little ones who believe in him. For he makes no 
distinction between those young persons who have become 
accountable for their conduct and others, except that founded 
on belief and unbelief — that is, between his Church and the 
world. Still, in the case of children who are spared to grow 
up to maturity, there is a moment at which each first becomes 
capable of committing sin. Until that time, they are the Lord's 
in the sense explained. In regard to every one of them there 
must be a first sin, and a first occasion of sin, and he who 
gives it, falls within this denunciation of the Saviour. The sin 
of misleading and corrupting children, or becoming the occasion 
of their straying into the way of transgression, we are war- 
ranted by this passage in saying, is peculiarly offensive to the 
Saviour. How few think that it would be better for them to 
die a violent death than to become the occasion of sin to a little 
child, or to an humble child-like follower of the Saviour ! How 
few consider the fearful responsibilities of their conduct towards 
those whom the Saviour claims especially as his own. 

Yet such is the Condition of the world, and the influences to 
which it is subject, that "it must needs be that offences come," 



200 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

verse 7, and such is human nature that offences, or occasions of 
sin, come even from within ourselves, as well as from the world 
without, verses 8, 9. The apostles, and consequently all others, 
might become their own tempters, but in such cases the Saviour 
required them to proceed to extremities, if necessary. " But if 
thy hand or foot offend thee, cut it off," . . . " and if thine eye 
offend thee, pluck it out," if there be no other means of resist- 
ing the occasion of offence. Recurring, then, to the subject of 
children, he repeats, with particular application to the apostles, 
a caution already impliedly given : " Take heed that ye despise 
not one of these little ones," enforcing it by the dignity and 
excellency which the Divine regard and care for them gives 
them. 

Matt, xviii. 10. "For I say unto you, That their angels in 
heaven" [literally, in the heavens] "do always behold the face 
of my Father which is in heaven." 

This expression is to some extent metaphorical ; for God is a 
Spirit. See John xiv. 9; i. 18; Heb. i. 3. "No one hath seen 
God at any time." Yet we cannot suppose our Lord would 
have spoken in this way, if these little ones had no guardian 
angels. Paul speaks of angels as ministering spirits, sent forth 
to minister to those who shall be heirs of salvation. Heb. i. 14. 
What reasonable objection, then, can there be to this belief? 
There are angels enough for the service. Paul speaks of them 
as myriads. Heb. xii. 22. Even nations have their angels. If 
not, how can we explain Dan. x. 20, 21; and xii. 1? The fact 
that God uses the ministry of angels in this world, cannot be 
denied consistently with the Scriptures. Luke i. 11, 19, 26; 
ii. 9, 12; Matt. xxvi. 53; Acts i. 10; xii. 7, 8; xxvii. 23; and 
see Deut. xxxii. 8, in the LXX. version; also notes on John xx. 
10, 12 ; and Jacojb Ode's Commentarius de Angelis. 

Matt, xviii. ll. "For the Son of Man is come to save that 
which was lost," [literally the lost to dnoXa)^.~\ 

Besides his mission as Messiah to Israel, our Lord had a 
mission as Son of Man. At the imprisonment of John the 
Baptist, he entered publicly on his mission to the nation of 
Israel as Messiah, John i. 11 ; at the death of John the Baptist, 
he entered on his mission to the people of Israel as the Son of 
Man* and he was now engaged in the execution of that mis- 

* This distinction may explain Matt. x. 23, a very difficult passage. At the 
death of John the Baptist, we have seen that our Lord changed his public 
course. Until that event, the nation was on their trial in their public, political, 
or associate capacity. The question for them to decide was, whether they 
would nationally receive Jesus as their Messiah. By rejecting John and 
allowing him to be put to death, they virtually rejected the Messiah also, whom 
he foreran. John i. 11. After the death of John, the Lord entered on his 
mission to the people as Son of Man ; and the question then was, who among 



EXTENT AND MINUTENESS OF THE DIVINE CARE. 201 

sion. Hence he said, The Son of Man is come — is already 
entered upon his work of • saving (to dTzolcolo;;) the lost — an 
expression comprehensive of all the effects of the apostasy, 
both in general and in all, even the minutest particulars. This 
is apparent from the illustration the Saviour makes of his 
meaning in the next three verses. 

Matt, xviii. 12, 13, 14. "How think ye? If a man have 
an hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not 
leave the ninety and nine and goeth [go] into the mountains 
[or leave the ninety and nine upon the mountains and go] and 
seeketh [seek] that which is gone astray, [the strayed one] and 
if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more 
of that [sheep] than of the ninety and nine which went not 
astray. Even so, it is not the will of your Father which is in 
heaven, that one of these little ones should perish." 

The grace and goodness of God, as well as the minuteness of 
his care and concern for his creatures, is beautifully illustrated by 
this comparison. It extends even to one little child; and would, 
even although only one were lost. But there is a magnificent 
idea in these verses which we shall fail of, if we do not consider 
the extent and diversity of its application. When we consider 
the vastness of the creation, and reflect that this world and all 
its creatures and concerns, compared with the rest, are but as a 
microscopic speck in the ocean; and that the Divine providence 
and care are extended as constantly and minutely to the whole 
of his creation as to this part of it, we are lost in the unsearcha- 
ble reach of the Divine attributes and the infinite riches of our 
Father's goodness. Some men, of great worldly reputation, 
find it impossible to believe that God should care for so incon- 
siderable a thing as this world, and especially that he should 
make such provision, as the Scriptures teach us he has made, 
for its recovery, even if they could regard it as lost. But they 
err through their ignorance of the Divine nature and attributes; 
nor do they consider that the goodness of God is concerned to 
confine rebellion and sin, if they are to be permitted at all, 
within the narrowest limits possible, consistent with his infi- 
nitely wise and glorious purposes. The earth, diminutive as it 

the people, each for himself, would receive him as the Son of Man and the 
Saviour. It was to this change in his relations and ministry, perhaps, our Lord 
alluded, when he said to his apostles, "Ye shall not have gone over the cities 
of Israel, till the Son of Man be come" — as if he had said — "Ye shall not 
have gone over the cities of Israel, before my mission to this nation as their 
Messiah, shall be accomplished, and I be ready to enter on my mission as Son 
of Man to the people in their individual and personal relations. John i. 12. 
This explanation did not occur to the writer until after the note on Matt, 
x. 23, was printed. It appears to be more satisfactory than any suggested 
in that note. 

26 - 



202 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

may be,, is a part of the vast fabric of creation; and man, 
humble as he now is when compared with angels, is one of God's 
subjects ; and the honour of the Divine government is, for aught 
we know, as much concerned in his revolt and the curse it 
brought on "this little world, as it could be in the case of some 
greater and more excellent orb, or of some more exalted crea- 
ture than man. Add to this, God's attributes of justice and 
mercy may be as gloriously displayed in the redemption and 
restoration of this little world, as they could have been, had it 
been the largest and most glorious of all the worlds he has 
made, and for aught we know, even more so. The comparison 
in these verses, and the application our Lord makes of it to 
the case of one little child, justifies the view we have taken of 
this subject; for, as in the case of a little child, the grace and 
goodness of God are not less conspicuously shown, because the 
earth is but a little planet and only one out of an infinite num- 
ber ; nor because the object of so expensive provision as the 
incarnation of the Son of God, is a comparatively little race of 
creatures, whose absence would scarcely be missed if blotted 
out of existence. Rather let us say, both are magnified and 
exhibited more gloriously to all creatures in all worlds. 

Matt, xviii. 15. "Moreover if [but should] thy brother 
trespass or sin against thee, go and tell him his fault between 
thee and him alone ; and if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained 
thy brother." 

Our Lord had just spoken of offences coming from the world, 
and pronounced a woe upon the world on account of them. 
With these he connects another class of offences, namely, those 
which should or might arise among his followers who were 
brethren. The world could not be dealt with in the way which 
was proper to be observed among brethren ; he therefore gives 
no directions how to proceed when the offence comes from un- 
godly or heathen men. They are to be left to the just judgment 
of God. But if the offence comes from a brother, a particular 
proceeding is prescribed, which it was the duty of his followers 
to observe. So the apostle Paul appears to have interpreted 
these directions of the Saviour. 1 Cor. v. 12, 13.* 

* The connecting thought appears to be that above suggested, although the 
word (cM*v<fa.\t£a>) translated offend is not synonymous with the word (apa.pra.va)) 
translated trespass. Some critics suppose the expression, "if thy brother 
trespass against thee," should be rendered "sin before thee," or "in thy 
presence." However this may be, the chief difference between this and the 
preceding verses (7th and 8th), appears to be that, in the former, the Saviour 
speaks in general of scandals, offences, or causes or occasions of sin to others, 
without discriminating whether in or out of the church ; whereas, in this 
verse (15th) he speaks exclusively of sins or trespasses by one brother or 
member of his church against another. 



OFFENCES BETWEEN BRETHREN. 203 

The direction in this and the next two verses, implies that 
differences must not be permitted to continue among brethren. 
The sin, or the offence, must be removed, or the relationship 
itself must cease. The overture, or initiatory step, must be 
taken by the offended party, and if it is successful, the offended 
party is to esteem himself a gainer, by the restoration of fra- 
ternal intercourse and relations. We observe, in this direction, 
a delicate regard to the infirmities of our nature. Our offences 
against our brethren are not to be made public without neces- 
sity. A private interview also may be attended with success, 
when one not strictly such might fail. It is, therefore, more 
hopeful, as well as more brotherly. Hence we might infer that 
the next step is directed, in part, at least, with a view to evi- 
dence, although not without some hope of reconciliation. 

Matt, xviii. 16, 17. " But if he will not hear thee, then 
take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or 
three witnesses every word [the whole thing] may be esta- 
blished." [Deut. xix. 15, in LXX.] "And if he shall neglect 
to hear them, tell it [i. e., nav py/ia, negotium de quo agitur, 
Beza] to the Church ; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let 
him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican" [as the 
ethnic or the publican is — b idwxo^ xou 6 rs/ou^c-] 

The interveners, who are to serve as witnesses, it is to be 
presumed, are also to be brethren, although this is not expressly 
directed, because they are first to use persuasion, and not until 
that fails, are they to appear as witnesses against the offender, 
before the whole body of brethren, which our Lord here calls 
the Church. He had before spoken once of his Church, but 
without any allusion to its condition, either as visible or invis- 
ible, or any description of its exterior form or of its attributes. 
Matt. xvi. 18. Here he alludes to the Church as a visible 
body of brethren — yet imperfect, inasmuch as the precept itself 
supposes sins or offences committed by one member against 
another. 

The learned John Selden supposed the (eeclesia) Church our 
Lord meant was the courts of law which then sat in Jerusalem ; 
but he mistook the scope of the passage and of its context. 

The word occurs in the course of a most important private 
instruction, designed for the direction of the apostles in the new 
dispensation, upon which they were soon to enter. The idea, 
our Lord does not develope. It could not be outwardly realized, 
or exhibited to the world, until after his rejection, death, resur- 
rection, and ascension, and the sending of the Holy Spirit — 
events, as we have frequently remarked, of which the apostles 
had no conception. Hence our Lord borrows a word from the 
existing institutions, in order to denote a new thing in the 



204 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

earth.* Heathenism had no institution analogous to the Church, 
which implies an association for religious purposes in contra- 
distinction to secular objects and interests. At Rome the 
Emperor was both the religious and political head of the 
empire. Cieero regarded the augurship the highest dignity in 
the State. The Flamens had the honours of royalty — a seat 
and a vote in the Senate by virtue of their office, the curule 
chair, and a palace to reside in. The Emperor through his 
subordinates took it upon himself to apppoint the high-priest 
of the Jews. Religion in the Roman world was wholly a State 
affair. Nor had Judaism a Church in the evangelical sense of 
the word ; and we may add, it was never meant to have. The 
religious and political commonwealth, by Divine constitution, 
were identical. That the subjects of either should form a 
society in an exclusively religious interest, independent of, or 
distinct from, their political relations or duties, was incompatible 
with the fundamental idea of theocracy, and would not have 
been tolerated in the days of David or Solomon. Judaism 
recognized no distinction between the citizen and the wor- 
shipper. Every ungodly Israelite was a traitor to his Divine 
King ; and every rebel against the State was an apostate from 
his religion. See notes on Luke xxiii. 30 ; John xix. 13. Its 
express aim was to organize the nation, as such, into a king- 
dom of heaven, under the Messiah, and it was the failure of 
this aim, through the depravity of nature, so far as that people 
were concerned, which gave occasion for the formation of the 
Church, out of which, or by means of which, the purposed king- 
dom of heaven should ultimately be organized. 

The Church of which our Lord spoke then, was to be a new 
thing in the earth. Its foundations were to be laid by the 
Holy Spirit, and the superstructure to be wholly the product 
of Divine power. As in its origin, in the land of Judea, it was 
independent of the Jewish State, and, in fact, designed upon 
its completion to take its place, and inherit the promises made 

* The •word iKtcxwria occurs frequently in the LXX., although the word church 
does not occur in our version of the Old Testament. The Hebrew word most 
frequently rendered by it is ^p (See Trommius, Cone.) rendered Assembly, 

Deut. xviii. 16, or, congregation, Deut. xxiii. 1, 2, 3, 8; xxxi. 30; Josh. viii. 35, 
and many other places. The word my is commonly translated in the LXX. 

a-vvttyaryu (synagogue) and in the English Version congregation. Exod. xii. 3, 6, 
19, 47; xvi. 1, 2, 9, 10, 22; xvii. 1; xxxiv. 31; xxxv. 1, 4, 20; xxxviii. 25, 
and many other places. It is probable our Lord gave this precept in the ver- 
nacular dialect of the apostles, but whether or not, the Evangelist writing by 
inspiration, wrote iMtoio-Ht and not <ruv*.yu>y*, as most approximative to the idea 
of the Saviour, and in this he is followed by Luke in the Acts, and by the 
apostles in their Epistles. It occurs one hundred and fourteen times in the 
New Testament. In Acts xix. 39, 41, it occurs in the secular sense of assembly. 



THE CHURCH. 205 

to it as the theocratic nation or people, 1 Pet. ii. 9 ; Exod. 
xix. 5, 6 ; so, during its increase and progress to its final con- 
summation at the second coming of the Lord, it was to be inde- 
pendent of, and wholly disconnected with, the secular powers 
of the world, because such alliances could not accelerate or aid 
its real progress, although, as experience has abundantly shown, 
they could greatly adulterate its purity, and, indeed, convert it 
into a secular thing, in many respects not unlike the state reli- 
gions which existed at its origin. Such, then, being the origin, 
nature, and relations of the Church, we add: A grosser per- 
version of the spirit and simplicity of this precept of the 
Saviour can hardly be imagined than the law of excommunica- 
tion as it was practised for ages in. the whole Church, and is 
now practised in some portions of it. When this institution of 
the Saviour began to be perverted, it would be difficult pre- 
cisely to determine. Selden affirmed that no man can show 
any excommunication before the Popes Victor and Zephyrinus 
first began to use it, upon private quarrels, at the beginning of 
the third century. Hence he inferred it was but a human 
invention, which he said was borrowed from the heathen. In 
this remark, Selden, no doubt, referred to the practice of 
excommunication, as it existed in the Roman Church ; for, 
undoubtedly, the sort of excommunication which consisted in 
the withdrawal of fraternal communication, was practised in the 
days of the apostles. 1 Cor. v. 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12 ; 1 Tim. 
i. 20; Rom. xvi. 17; 2 Thess. iii. 6, 14 ; 2 John, verse 10. 

The cause of this perversion, whenever it may have first 
occurred, was the influx of false professors, and their predomi- 
nant influence ; and this again led to the alliance of the Church 
to the secular powers, and finally the subjection of the secular 
powers to the visible Church during a period of several cen- 
turies. Virtually this was the restoration of a state of things 
similar to that which existed at the origin of the Church, while 
the Jewish Commonwealth existed. The true Church was then 
hidden again within the ecclesiastical Commonwealth, which 
had become secularized, and, like the Jewish and Roman 
States, persecuting. 

At the Reformation, a large proportion of the true Church 
was excommunicated from the visible Church, including many 
pious ministers. Yet they lost neither their standing nor their 
authority as ministers of Christ: for he is the great Architect 
of the Church. Matt. xvi. 18. From him they derived their 
authority, and by his blessing he manifested his approval of 
their work. The true Church, by which we mean the body of 
the elect which the Lord will receive to himself, was no less one 
after the Reformation than it was before : for the true Church 



206 . NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

is not and never has been identical with the visible Church, 
even in its purest form, as is proved by the character of the 
visible Church, even in the days of the apostles. See notes on 
Acts ii. 47. 

Matt, xviii. 18. " Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye 
shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye 
shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 

This verse has already been, to some extent, remarked upon. 
See notes on Matt. xvi. 19. It is to be read in connection with 
the preceding verse, which, although of general application, is 
in its form addressed to the apostles, as if personal to them. 
Our Lord did not give it a wider application at that time, for 
the reason already repeatedly mentioned, viz., the inability of 
the apostles to conceive of coming events. To have given 
them an adequate conception of the multiplication of Churches 
throughout the world, even during their lifetime, it would have 
been necessary to disclose many things which his Divine wisdom 
left to his Providence, and the teachings of the Holy Spirit. 
He therefore spoke of the (ixxAyaea) Church, as though it were 
a single visible association of his disciples; and for a period of 
several years there was, in fact, but one such body. But to 
guard against the interpretation that the promise contained in 
this verse, was to be limited to that one body or Church, he 
added, verses 19, 20: "Again I say unto you, That if two of you 
shall agree on earth as touching anything they shall ask, it 
shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven : for 
where [any] two or three are gathered together in my name, 
there am I in the midst of them." 

This is the power of binding and loosing spoken of in the 
preceding verse, and the addition of these words proves that 
the power promised was not designed to be the exclusive pos- 
session of any one visible body of believers. It follows, there- 
fore, that each successive Church, or association of believers to 
the end of the dispensation, comes within this promise as fully 
as the first Church that was formed at Jerusalem ; and not only 
Churches, but individual believers, in small numbers, meeting 
together without any permanent organization, are also included 
in the promise ; for the presence of Christ in the midst of them 
implies a promise to hear their requests, and the promise of his 
grace and power to fulfil them, which moreover is expressly 
made by the words, "it shall be done for them." This agrees 
with the nature of the Church as before described. It is a 
heavenly, not an earthly institution. All its real and author- 
ized powers are Divine, and of course vested not in any visible 
body as such, but in those members of any visible body or 
Church in whom the Holy Spirit dwells; for these only are 



THE DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH. 207 

really included in the promise. The being "gathered together 
in the name of Christ" implies much more than the congrega- 
tion or association of those who. have made an outivard profes- 
sion of faith in his name. An association composed wholly of 
unconverted persons is not a Church. To call such an associa- 
tion a Church is a solecism. 

Matt, xviii. 21, 22. "Then came Peter to him and said, 
Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me and I forgive 
him ? Till seven times ? Jesus saith unto him : I say not unto 
thee, until seven times, but until seventy times seven." See 
Luke xvii. 3, 4. 

This question was suggested by the direction our Lord had 
just given in respect to an offending brother, verse 15. The 
case put by the Saviour was that of a single offence. The 
apostle desired to know how often the course of proceeding he 
had prescribed should be pursued. Our Lord's reply in effect 
is, that the duty of forgiveness, between brethren, is of perma- 
nent obligation, and he enforced it by the consideration, in the 
35th verse, that unless heartily performed by the injured 
brother, he could not look for the Divine forgiveness. But we 
notice this passage chiefly for the light it casts upon the nature 
of the discipline our Lord intended to authorize. 

In reviewing this passage, verses 15 — 21, one thing strikes 
us as very significant : it is this, that our Lord should comprise 
the whole of the discipline he appointed for his Church in this 
single direction. As a rule prescribed for those who truly have 
the spirit of Christ, it is all-sufficient and perfect. As applied 
to visible bodies of professing Christians, it fails only because 
many who profess the name of Christ do not possess his Spirit. 
In such cases, the rule, serves as a test or means of discrimina- 
tion between true and false professors. It was natural that the 
apostles should afterwards prescribe for the churches they estab- 
lished, more in detail, an orderly mode of proceeding for those 
cases which should come before them, and indicate the manner 
in which their action should be authenticated and be made 
known. Beyond this we conceive the apostles did not go. The 
voluminous codes of ecclesiastical or canon law which have been 
formed since their days, have nothing to rest upon but human 
authority. They are, for the most part, the work of worldly 
men in the Church. They never could have come into exist- 
ence if the visible Church had remained pure, and had not for- 
gotten the teachings of the Lord and his apostles concerning 
his always-to-be-expected return. In framing, these codes of 
permanent laws, which it requires the labour of a long life to 
comprehend, the Church, or rather the hierarchy, proceeded 
upon the assumption that the day of the Lord's coming was 



208 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

certainly afar off, see Matt. xxiv. 48, 49 ; whereas the apostles, 
by not giving many or minute instructions, proceeded upon the 
idea that they were bound at all times to look for it, because 
they knew not at what hour their Lord would come and take 
the whole body of his elect people to himself. To the apostasy 
of the Church, 2 Thess. ii. 3, must be ascribed, also, instru- 
mentally, the delay of the Lord's coming, which has given 
occasion to the perversion of church discipline before mentioned. 
The Church has not preached the Gospel to all nations, and the 
elect body is not yet completed. This is one of the mysteries 
of the kingdom which our Lord allegorically foretold in the 
parable of the tares of the field.* Matt. xiii. 30, 40. 

Matt. xix. 24 — 26. " And again I say unto you, It is easier 
for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich 
man to enter into the kingdom of Grod. When his .disciples 
heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can 
be saved? But Jesus beheld them and said to them, With men 
this is impossible, but with God all things are possible." 

This conversation occurred privately between the Lord Jesus 
and the disciples, upon the choice of the young man who in- 
quired what good thing he must do to have eternal life, verses 
16 — 21. The amazement of the disciples arose from their igno- 
rance, at that time, of the plan of salvation, and the means by 
which it was to be accomplished. They had no idea of salva- 
tion through a crucified Messiah, which our Lord here intimates 
would be the means of working greater wonders than the pass- 
ing of a camel through the eye of a needle. The work of 

* There is a chasm in the narrative of this Evangelist, between the 18th and 
19th chapters, which the harmonists fill with several chapters of Luke and 
John. Griesbach introduces at this place the entire passage from Luke ix. 51 
to xviii. 14. Newcome begins with Luke x. and ends with Luke xviii. 14 ; but 
he transposes Luke x. 38, 42, so as to make it follow Luke xviii. 14. From 
John's Gospel also, he introduces from the beginning of the 7th chapter to the 
54th verse of the 11th chapter. By a reference to these chapters, it will be 
perceived that the break in the narrative of Matthew is considerable. Some 
of the omitted topics have already been incidentally remarked upon — such as 
the mission of the seventy disciples, the discourses of our Lord recorded by 
John in the 6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th chapters, and others may be adverted to in 
the same way hereafter. The place last mentioned by this Evangelist is Ca- 
pernaum, xvii. 24. The 1st verse of the 19th chapter informs us of the Lord's 
(final) departure from Galilee towards the confines of Judea beyond Jordan ; 
and in chap xx. 17, that he proceeded thence towards Jerusalem. See Luke 
ix. 51. What follows, therefore, relates to what our Lord said and did in his 
last journey to and at Jerusalem, upon which Luke principally dwells. See 
foot-note to John xx. 19. 'This omission of many of the incidents of that jour- 
ney by Matthew, is accounted for by some critics on the supposition that it 
was Matthew's intention to confine his narrative chiefly to our Lord's ministry 
in Galilee. It is impossible, we think, to make a perfect chronological harmony 
of the four Evangelists, and if we could, it would be best to explain each sepa- 
rately; for in this way only can we attend closely to the drift of each. 



THE REGENERATION. 209 

redemption, in all its parts, is a new creation. It is carried on 
by powers contrary to nature and above nature. The end of it 
is to change nature and restore it from its fallen condition by 
powers of a higher order. Rightly considered, there is no 
hyperbole in our Lord's comparison ; for it amounts simply to 
this: "Fallen nature has no self-restoring power. It cannot 
bring itself back to the state it was in before the fall. No 
proposition, involving a mere physical impossibility, is compar- 
able, in respect of difficulty, to the impossibility, of nature 
(either physical or moral) changing itself back into the state of 
incorruption. But the power that created all things at first can 
create all things anew ; and there is nothing that creative power 
cannot accomplish." The disciples were unable, at that time, 
to enter into this large conception of the nature, extent, diffi- 
culty, and glory of the work on which the Saviour had entered, 
or of the powers by which it was to be accomplished ; but, with 
this idea in the Saviour's mind, we can easily trace the connec- 
tion between the observation which so amazed his disciples, 
and what he said concerning the regeneration (or palinge- 
nesia) immediately afterwards, in his reply to the question of 
Peter. What more natural than to connect the wonderful work 
of fitting a fallen, sinful man for the kingdom of God, and the 
wonderful work of creating all things new ! The former is but 
a part of the latter, and is included in it. 

Matt. xix. 27. " Then answered Peter, &c, Behold we have 
forsaken all and followed thee ; what shall we have therefore ?" 

Peter's question, and the remark on which it was founded, 
were obviously suggested by the conduct of the young man. 
He would not give up, as they had done, his earthly possessions 
at the bidding of the Saviour, and could not, therefore, enter 
into the kingdom of God. Would this be the case with them, 
whose conduct was the opposite ? Our Lord's reply, as often 
happened, was exuberant. He did not simply say, Ye shall 
enter into the kingdom of God, but ye shall have dominion in 
that kingdom. ' 

Matt. xix. 28. "Verily I say unto you, ye who have fol- 
lowed me," [tacitly alluding, by way of contrast, to the conduct 
of the young man,] " in the regeneration, when the Son of Man 
shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve 
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel." 

The meaning of the word regeneration (jcolcfyeveaca^) indeed 
of this whole passage, has been greatly controverted, and some 
critics, in the main judicious, have sought to avoid the difficulty 
they find in explaining it, by the bold expedient of expunging 
the whole verse. Of the genuineness of this verse, however, 
there can be no reasonable doubt. 
27 



210 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Matt* hi. 2. " Kingdom of heaven" [ftaadeca twv oupavajv) 
kingdom of the heavens.] 

If we adopt the hypothesis, that the stupendous globes which 
garnish the heavens, surpassing in number our arithmetic, many 
of which greatly exceed the earth in magnitude, are the dwell- 
ing places (jiovae, John xiv. 2) of an intelligent moral creation, 
capable of beholding the glory of God, and of adoring him for 
his goodness, it will not be difficult for us to admit, also, that 
the government of this immeasurable fabric of worlds is directly 
administered by God himself — in other words that the govern- 
ment of the universe, as one vast dominion, is, and necessarily 
must be, theocratical. Before Adam fell, God's government of 
him and of the world itself was immediate. Had Adam continued 
upright, we have no reason to suppose God would have with- 
drawn from him, or left his offspring to grope in darkness after 
his will. Acts xvii. 27—30. 

Let us suppose, further, that each of these unnumbered 
worlds is the dwelling-place of a race or order of beings pro- 
ceeding from, or some way connected with, one common stock, 
Eph. iii. 15, and all sinless, the loving, willing subjects of their 
Creator ; his laws, however communicated, would rule their 
being; his will would be done in each perfectly, as we are 
taught to pray that it may yet be done on earth. However 
diversified in their form, structure, or condition, these worlds 
and their inhabitants may be, and however various, may be the 
manifestations of the Divine will, and although separated by 
spaces vast beyond all finite conception, yet relatively to the 
Creator they constitute but one kingdom, called in the Scrip- 
tures the kingdom of the heavens, or the kingdom of God, 
because none but God could govern a realm so constituted or 
so vast. Considered as one kingdom, the government of it, 
therefore, can only be theocratical.* 

But this world has dropped from the sphere it was designed 
to occupy. The curse of God has come over it, through sin. 
Rom. viii. 20, 22. As a necessary consequence, the kingdom 
of the heavens was withdrawn at the coming in of the curse. 

* Camerarius on John xiv. 2, says : "ohizv autem non accipiemus nunc dici 
locum aliquem certse habitationis sed omnipotentiam et imperii Dei infinitatem: 
Sic enim Theophylactus: olxiav r»v i^cva-iav kxi t»v af>%_nv von — juovoti autem sunt 
habitationes c\7ro tov y.tvuv, id est a manendo." The father's (gjW) dwelling- 
place is the universe of worlds which he has made. Every house, (choc) 
says Paul, is built by some one, but he that built all things — as a house or 
dwelling-place (out*) for himself — is God. Heb. iii. 4. The late Dr. Dwight 
remarks (Serm. xvii:) "Thus the universe is the immense and glorious em- 
pire of Jehovah ; an empire formed of suns and systems, the families, cities, 
and provinces of the vast kingdom ruled by him, who telleth the number of 
the stars, and calleth them all by their names." 



THE KINGDOM OF THE HEAVENS. 211 

Yet not for ever; for it was God's purpose even from the begin- 
ning, "to restore the world to its lost place in creation, by ways 
which, from time to time, he gradually revealed. The time for 
its restoration, though fixed in the Divine mind, has ever been 
a secret; yet, because it is fixed, it has continually been drawing 
nearer. When John the Baptist appeared, this kingdom was 
formally announced by him as come nigh ; but the Jews, having 
rejected and crucified the incarnated King of this vast kingdom, 
it was taken away from them, Matt. xxi. 43, and for a time 
withdrawn again from the world. 

The Jews, from the giving of the law, had been subject to 
the special government of God. They received their laws 
directly from him ; we, therefore, call the government esta- 
blished over them theocratical. See notes on Matt. ii. 2. Yet 
it was not the kingdom of the heavens which they enjoyed, 
Deut. xi. 21 ; that was a much higher form of theocracy, and 
such as perfectly holy beings only can enjoy. The race of 
Israel, notwithstanding the restraints and proffered blessings of 
the Divine government, Exod. xix. 5, 6 ; Deut. xi. 26 — 28, 
were a stiff-necked and rebellious people from the beginning, 
always resisting the Divine will, Acts vii. 51 ; Ezek. xx., and 
continually suffered, on that account, chastisements such as no 
other nation has experienced. But the kingdom of the heavens 
imports the absence of all sin, Matt. v. 48, and all moral and 
physical evil, Gen. i. 31; Bev. xxi. 4, and consequently em- 
braces within its Divine influences only unfallen worlds, or 
those into which sin has not entered. " That there are such — 
the residence of intelligent beings of incalculable numbers, and 
endless diversities of character, all supported, governed, and 
blessed, as the worlds they inhabit are sustained, regulated, and 
moved, by the hand of that Almighty Being who created them, 
and whose kingdom ruleth over all — there is the highest reason 
to suppose." Dwight's Serm. xvii. 

This was the kingdom John preached, which was withdrawn 
from the world when man fell and sin entered. That it was 
not the theocracy of the Levitical economy, is proved by the 
fact that the law and the prophets, during all the times of the 
Jewish theocracy, announced the kingdom of the heavens as 
future. John the Baptist, first after the fall, proclaimed it as 
come nigh again. Luke xvi. 16 ; Matt. xi. 11, 13. 

Nor was the kingdom John preached, as many suppose, the 
dispensation of the Gospel to the Gentiles ; for John's baptism 
and whole ministry was limited to Israel, and when Israel fell, 
his baptism was superseded by a wider baptism. Matt, xxvii. 
19 ; iii. 5, 6; Luke iii. 21. See notes on Matt. iii. 11, 12. The 
dispensation of grace to the Gentiles was appointed because of 



212 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

the failure of the dispensation of the law to the Jews. Rom. 
viii. 3; Gal. ii. 21. As in the parable of the marriage, Matt, 
xxii. 1 — 7, had (Israel) the first invited guests accepted the 
king's most gracious offer, another company, elected and taken 
out of the Gentiles, would not have been called. Luke xiv. 15, 
24;. Rom. xi. 11. This last company, subrogated to, or substi- 
tuted in, the place of those first called, will attain, by God's 
grace, when their body, the elect Church, shall be completed, 
that pre-eminence in the kingdom of God, which was first pro- 
mised to Israel, 1 Pet. ii. 9 ; Exod. xix. 5, 6, conditionally on 
their obedience. It results, therefore, that both the economy 
of law and the economy of grace were designed to be introduc- 
tory to the kingdom of the heavens. John preached a kingdom 
which is yet future, but would have come in^his day, had Israel 
accepted it with the obedience of the heart to its appointed 
king. We preach the same kingdom as still future, to Jew and 
Gentile alike, while the Spirit seals those who believe, and will 
continue to do so till the aggregate of the elect of God shall 
be accomplished, and another chosen generation and truly royal 
priesthood, 1 Pet. ii. 9, shall be made ready to show forth the 
praises of Jehovah Jesus, the second Adam — the Restorer of 
the kingdom, and its anointed King. 

It can be shown, that along with the setting up of the king- 
dom of Messiah, the Jews expected the end of the whole present 
condition of human things, and also the resurrection of the pious 
dead. See Koppes Excursus I. to 2 Epist. Thess., for valuable 
thoughts on this formula, though he falls short of the concep- 
tion this note is designed to set forth. Also, Lightfoot on Matt, 
xxiv. 3. 

Bloomfield (Crit. Big.) on Matt. xix. 28, remarks, "There is 
scarcely any passage, the meaning of which has been more con- 
troverted." This seems strange; for the idea expressed by the 
Saviour must have been familiar to the disciples, and of course to 
the Jewish mind. Why cannot we also apprehend it ? It has 
been remarked, notes on Matt. iii. 2, that along with the setting 
up of the kingdom of Messiah, the Jews expected the end of the 
whole present condition of human things. This would necessarily 
result from the nature and glory of Messiah's kingdom, or the 
kingdom of the heavens, which is the same thing. Dan. ii. 44; 
vii. 22, 27. They expected in fact a renovation, or what our 
Lord here expresses by the word {izahyyzvzato^ palingenesia, a 
second generation or creation (nalcv yeveatt;) much more glorious 
than the present — a new world, in fact, in which all the glori- 
ous predictions of their prophets should be fully realized, Isa. 
lxv. 17, 25 ; 2 Pet. iii. 13 ; Rev. xxi. 5, over which Messiah 
their Prince would reign. Ps. ii. 6, 12. With this conception 



THE REGENERATION OR PALINGENESIA. 213 

our Lord's language in the verse we are considering agrees. 
To Pilate he said: a My kingdom is not from hence; it is not 
of this world — it cannot consist together with this condition of 
things; my servants do not strive for place or power in it." 
To his disciples he said: "In the regeneration, {izahyyuvzoid) 
when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his glory, ye 
also shall sit upon thrones," &c. 

The regeneration (or palingenesia), and the kingdom of the 
heavens, then, are related ideas, Luke xxii. 28, 30 ; the former 
denoting the order or condition of things over which the latter 
is to be established. They are not strictly synonymous terms, 
but as they signify synchronous or co-existing things and 
events, they may be interchangeably used. The palingenesia 
is another name for the new heavens and new earth, Isa. 
lxv. 17 ; 2 Pet. iii. 13, or for the world to come {ply.oop.zvqv tyju 
peXXoooav, Heb. ii. 5,) in which all things shall be created anew. 
Rev. xxi. 5. When this expectation shall be realized, then the 
kingdom of the heavens will embrace and bless the earth again 
as it did before sin entered it, and as it now does, and ever has, 
myriads of unfallen spheres. See Rom. viii. 21. 

Bengel's remarks on this verse are to the point, and striking: 
"Nova erit genesis, cui prseerit Adamus secundus, 1 Cor. xv. 
44, 47, ubi et microcosmus totus, [meaning man,] per resurrec- 
tionem et macrocosmus [by which he means the earth and the 
heavens connected therewith, and all creatures contained in 
them,] genesin iteratam habebit." He cites Acts iii. 21; Rev. 
xxi. 5; Matt. xxvi. 29; Tit. iii. 5; Luke xx. 36; Rom. viii. 23; 
and 1 John iii. 2. 

Olshausen expressly refers to the connection between the 
"Regeneration" and the kingdom of the Heavens. "The 
nafoyyevsaca" he says, "denotes merely the coming forth of the 
flaodsta, from its concealment in the inner world of the Spirit, 
into the outer world; or the spiritualizing of the outer world 
from within. The selection of the expression Ttahyyeveota to 
denote this, arises from the magnificent idea of drawing a 
parallel between the whole and the individual," or, as Bengel 
expressed it, between the macrocosmus and the microcosmus. 
" In Titus iii. 5, baptism (Xourpov irahyyeveacac;) appears as the 
means which bring about the new birth of the individual. .... 
It goes forward from the nueupa to the final glorifying of the 

acopa. Rom. viii Without distinguishing the separate 

steps, the term (jtaXtyyevecna) comprehends the whole in one 

general expression Man, therefore, as a microcosm, 

appears as an emblem, prefiguring every stage of development 
in the macrocosm, and just as it is only in the glorifying of the 



214 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

body, that the development of an individual's "whole life" 
[that is, his Tzahyyzvzaia, or regeneration] " has its consumma- 
tion, even so the glorifying agency of the Spirit reaches its 
climax only in the pervading of the material." See an Essay 
on Regeneration by Maitlancl, in Eruvin. 

We may conceive of this great change with equal propriety, 
as the bringing in of new influences, ab externo — as the restora- 
tion of powers and principles originally operative, but long 
since withdrawn — in one word, as the paadeca rcov oupavcov, or 
paradise, restored, or brought back again. 

Such a conception would be as natural as the outward devel- 
opment of inward power, and more agreeable to the form in 
which John the Baptist and our Lord first announced this great 
change, to which the baptism of John had respect. The 
baptism afterwards appointed by our Lord, though different 
from John's, has respect to the actual coming of the same king- 
dom, as well as the resurrection and glorification of the elect 
when their number shall be completed. But as this matter will 
be more conveniently discussed in connection with another pas- 
sage, we pass it for the present without further remark. 

We add, in the note below, some extracts from the commen- 
tators to show the opinions of the learned on this passage; 
premising, that Dr. Owen and some others, see Bowyers Con- 
jectures, and Bloomfield's Critical Digest, would expunge the 
words (&> r/j Tzahyyeveoca) as an interpolation.* 

* In the regeneration — h t» 7ra.xryyiv&i* — \v ra> *iwi z7rtp%o/uiva>, Mark x. 30; \v tot 
etlcevi ip%o/uim, Luke xviii. 30, which are parallel expressions: "in the second 
generation, or creation," Triglot, New Test. ; " in the renovation," Dr. Campbell; 
"in the new order of things at the end of time, Kenrick, New Test.; "in the 
new world," Murdoch; "in saeculo novo," Fabricius, Latin New Test, from the 
Syriac ; "iterata generatio," Kuinoel; "in renovata vita," Castalio; "in ilia 
restauratione (resurrectione) quando Messias splendidum suum tribunal occu- 
paverit," Naebe; "in regeneratione (plena)," Sebast. Schmidt;' "bey der Wie- 
derherstellung der Dinge," De Weite; "in jener neuem Verfassung," Stoltz, 
Van Fss; " Wiedererzeugung, Wiedergeburt, Wiederaufleben, Erneuerung," 
J. G. Schneider's Lex. Cicero uses the word, Ad Attic, vi. 6, to signify the 
recovery of his rank and fortune. Josephus, Antiq. xi. 3, 9, uses it to denote 
the recovery of country, after exile. Philo, in Vita Mo sis, uses it to signify 
the renewal of the earth, after the Deluge. See Rose's Parkhurst Lex., Robin- 
son's Lex., Grinfield, New Test , editio Helenistica. The Pythagoreans used it 
to signify reditum mentis tk yvn<nv, cum mens prius defuncti ad vitam in corpus 
alterius redibat. Hammond and Le Clerc. See also Adam Clarke. 

" Hsec vox propria novum seu secundum statum significat to \k Jtorepoo 
y&nbmcu ku avct7r\cL^mAi, denuo generari et formari ut aiunt Grammatici." 
Hammond and Clericus. Hesychius. 

Math. Flacius Illyricus notes: "Regeneratio significat illam gloriosam 
vitam ubi erit plena hominis et regni Dei instauratio." 

Simon, the Romanist, translated by Webster, says: "By the regeneration, 
most of the ancient commentators understood the resurrection, believing the 
last judgment to be here spoken of. It may be said, likewise, that Christ 
speaks of his own reign. The Jews agree that, at Messiah's coming, all 



THE REGENERATION OR PALLNGEXESIA. 215 

Our own conception of the {-olqy -viced) regeneration, and 
of the (fiaacXeta twv obejavwv) Kingdom of the Heavens, is ex- 
pressed in general terms near the beginning of this note. More 
particularly it includes: 

(1.) The resurrection, exaltation, and glorification of the 
Church of the first born or the elect; their installation as kings 

things shall be renewed, and the law shall receive a new perfection." See 
also Lightfoot on Matt. xxiv. 3. 

Beza says : " Regeneratio sumitur pro ilia die, qua. electi incipient novam 
vitam vivere, id est, qnum animo et corpore frnentur ilia hrereditate ccelesti." 
This note is translated in the margin of the Old English Bible, Edit. 1598. 

PFAFFirs says: "Ad renovationem seculi, munduinque futurum hie spectari 
tarn clarum est, quam quod clarissimum : ita ut miremur esse viros qui existi- 
ment de regeneratione spirituali, vel priore Christi adventu htec explicanda, 
quem errorem hie et Lightfoot erravit." 

Olearius (Obs. Sac. ad Evang. Matt.) says: " Omnino itaque verissimam 
existimem eorum sententiam, qui Traxryywzrtav Christo hie idem, quod Petro 
» reev 7TAtrmv (M-Marco-raTis est, esse existimant ; h. e., novam faciem rerum 
omnium in mundi consummatione, quam delineans Joannes obpaviv kojvov, yav 
xajviiv, 7r*vrx. kov/o. esse dicit, et cujus regenerations pars est restitutio mortuo- 
rum, per resurrectionem ; quae inde ut supra ostendhnus, et ipsa 7raxiyye/&uL 
dicitur. Quam subordinationem eleganter illustrat locus Epiphanii : — ha. inquit 
cLubis iv th 7ta jyytv&ia avaa-KSJAm ro uyyzs \i th ava,o-ra>rtt eie mv dp^aiav <pa«5pi7»ra: 
ut in 7ri.hiyyivi<Ji'JL rursum vas istud, per resurrectionem ad pristinam pulchriiudinem 
restituat.'''' Epiph. Ad Hares, xxxvii. i. And see Thomas Gataker in Notes to 
Marcus Antoninus, xi. 1, and Burnet's Theory of the Earth, L. iv. c. 5, for 
copious citations from the Stoic and Platonic philosophers. The word also 
occurs in Clement's first Epistle to the Corinthians, v. 3, or \ ix. of Hefele's 
edit. Nai 7rtOTQ£ siptSu; Sia ra; ?Mrzupyi*s abrcv 7ra.xtyynfffiaM koo-juu swp^sv .... 
*. t. x. Xoah being found faithful, did, by his ministry, preach regeneration 
to the world, &c. 

Detlixgius (Obs. Sac.) says: "Nobis magis probatur sententia eorum qui 
7m}jyymricLv banc sensu ampliori exponunt de totius universi in die novissimo 
renovatione quando ccelum novum, nova terra, ac omnia, erunt nova, secundum 
delineationem Joannis Apocal. xxi. Haec 7raxiyym<ria Christo hie nil aliud est, 
quam » rav 7ra.vruv a7rc11a.rus-Ta.a-1; Petro commemorata, Act. iii. 21, cujus inno- 
vations pars est restitutio mortuorum per resurrectionem. Haec enim initium 
erit, et magna pars hujus 7rahryy aorta; et L7nx.ara<rru<riu>; namm, qua facta, 
Apostoli in judicio extremo erunt <ryv6p:v«, testes et assessores Christi, univer- 
sum terrarum orbem, singulatim duodecim tribus Israel judicaturi," kc, 

Munster {Crit. Sacri) says: "Haec secunda generatio est resurrectio mor- 
tuorum, quando Christus gloriosus redibit judicaturus orbem et electi et 
regenerati ad gloriam simul cum Christo, capite suo, regnabunt," &c. 

L.E Clerc and Hammond say: " Apud Scriptores sacros, pariter usurpatur 
pro resurrectione, seu quae fit ultimo die, cum corpus restitutum denuo cum 
mente conjungetur." 

Cocceius more briefly thus : " 7ra\tyys/a-ia. . . . hoc est quando fiet ccelum 
novum et terra nova in quibus justitia liabitet." He cites 2 Pet. iii. 13. 

Jan sexius says: "Per regenerationem intelligenda est resurrectio ex mor- 
tuis, quae velut secunda generatio hominis erit secundum corpus, quemadmodum 
in baptismo est secunda hominis secundum animum generatio." Harm. Ch. 
c. p. 717. 

Diodati : "In the regeneration, that is to say, in the "life to come, when 
there shall be a new heavens and a new earth." Annotations. 

Lamy's gloss is: "In renovata vita, in futuro saeculo." 

Piscator says : " Id est in renovatione mundi vel potius, post renovationem 



216 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

and priests of the Messiah, into the places of honour prepared 
for them by the Father in the wide domains of his universal 
kingdom. Rev. ii. 26; v. 10; xx. 6; Luke xix. 17, 19; Matt, 
xx. 23; xix. 28; John xvii. 20, 21, 22—26; Phil. iii. 21; John 
v. 2. Some of the authors before quoted seem to consider the 
resurrection and glorification of the elect as all that is intended 
by this term ; others seem to include also, as we do, 

(2.) The renovation of the world, and its restoration to the 
perfection and glory of Paradise, which, of course, implies the 
expulsion of Satan, of sin, and of all physical and moral evil — 
in one word, of the curse, and the full realization of the many 
prophecies predictive of every conceivable good, both negative 
and positive, of a terrestrial kind. See G-reswell on the Para- 
bles, vol. i., Introd. part i., chap. xii. pp. 234 — 252, for a sum- 
mary of these prophecies. 

(3.) It includes also, as we conceive, the restoration of the 
twelve tribes of Israel to the land of the covenant; their con- 
version and complete sanctification ; the re-establishment of the 
Theocracy over them, and consequently their pre-eminence 
among the nations of the earth ; for, from Jerusalem shall then 
go forth the law and the word of the Lord to all the earth, with 

mundi, in altero saeculo quanquam nomen 7raxiyym7ix videtur potissimum intel- 
ligendum de restitutione corporum et resurrectione." 

Cornelius a Lapide comments thus: "Verum omnes alii" (S. Hilario ex- 
cepto) "passim per regenerationem, accipiunt resurrectionem communem, 
futuiam in die judicii: hrec enim, quia corporis totiusque hominis, seque ac 
mundi renovatio, et quasi secunda ad gloriam generatio, hinc recte hie et alibi 
regeneratio vocatur. Unde Syrus vertit in sceculo novo ; Arabicus in genera- 
tione ventura: tunc enim erit novum coelum et nova terra." Isa. lxv. 17; Apoc. 
xxi. 1 ; 2 Pet. iii. 13. 

Chemnitz (Harm. chap. 132, vol. 1, p. 1372) says: "Alii vero referunt" 
(vocem regeneratio) "ad sequens verbum sedebitis, ut loquatur de sccundo suo 
adventu, ubi in novissimo die, qui a Petro dicitur dies restitutionis omnium, et 
mortui resurgent omnes, et superstates in momento immutabuntur. Is dies hie 
vocatur a Christo regeneratio, eo quod in resurrectione, regeneratio nostra, 
quae in baptismo inchoata, et ubi anima ab omnibus sordibus peccatorum, ab- 
luta est, plene ita ut, etiam corpora nostra, incorruptibilitatem et immortali- 
tatem induant atque conformia fiant glorioso corpori Christi." Philip, iii. 21. 

But Grotius, Hardoin, Whitby, Lightfoot, Townsend, Bishop Bloom- 
field, Goadby's Illustrations, New Testament, and some others, refer the phrase 
to the present condition of things. Grotius, for example, says that the word 
denotes the kingdom of Messiah, which, as he teaches, commenced with the 
resurrection of Christ — in other words, he applies it to the present dispensa- 
tion of the Gospel among the Gentiles, which in his view is the TrctKeyyivio-iA. 
Calovius says this is against the common consent of almost all interpreters. 
He adds that even the Syrian translator whom Grotius quotes, renders the 
word seculum novum, and the Arabic, generationem venturam. See Calovius in 
loco. 

Scott, Henry, Barnes, Jacobus, and many others among modern commen- 
tators, on the other hand, with better reason, agree with the ancient, in refer- 
ring it to a future condition of the world and of mankind, though they do not 
express any distinct idea as to what that condition will be. 



THE REGENERATION" OR PALINGEXESIA. 217 

irresistible energy and power. Isa. ii. lx. The theocracy from 
that time forward will not be limited to a single nation, and 
that a sinful and rebellious one, as the Hebrews were during the 
Levitical economy ; but it will embrace and sanctify all the 
nations of the earth, subordinating them to Israel, Isa. lx. 11 ; 
Mai. i. 11, now made perfectly holy, Isa. lx. 20; lxi. 3; Acts 
iii. 23, while Israel in the flesh in turn, as well as (to. idvq twv 
o a> r otitis cm) the nations who shall survive the judgment of that 
day, Rev. xxi. 24, will be subordinate to the Israel of God, or 
the Church, of the first-born, the glorified elect, among whom 
the apostles will have a peculiar office, Matt. xix. 28, gathered 
by Christ their head (iv rote, eTroupawotz, John iii. 12; 1 Cor. 
xv. 40, 48, 49; Eph. i. 3, 20; ii. 6; iii. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 18) to 
dwell with him for ever in heavenly places, exalted far above all 
angelic natures, and clothed with spiritual, immortal bodies, 
like the Saviour's, of surpassing beauty and strength. John 
xiv. 2, 3; 1 Thess. iv. 17. 

Thus the palingenesia, a word expressive of the great pur- 
pose of redemption, embraces the complete reparation of the 
evil done by the prevarication and fall of Adam ; the restora- 
tion of man, as the inhabitant of the earth, to the dignity and 
excellence in which he was created, thereby making him a fit 
subject of the kingdom of God, as it was originally established 
over Adam, and as it now prevails in all worlds into which sin 
has not entered ; and besides all this, an accession of accumu- 
lated glory in compensation, so to speak, for the immense cost 
of the Divine achievement, in the elevation of myriads of our 
race immeasurably above the rank originally assigned to man 
in the hierarchy of created natures. 

4. It is implied also, as we conceive, that this new creation, 
being a fruit of the redemptive work of Christ, 1 John ii. 2, 
will for ever remain before the Lord, perfect and glorious, and 
continue to be for ever the dwelling-place of holy, happy beings, 
through an unending series of generations, under the headship 
of the Second Adam. But, as remarked by Olshausen, the 
word [paling enesia) does not distinguish the steps of the pro- 
cess through which the final result will be reached. The great 
Sabbath of the world, or the millennium, is blended in this 
expression, with the glory which (iv zocz aitooi -zoic, kTrsp^o/ieuo^, 
Eph. ii. 7) shall follow it. See notes on Acts iii. 21. 

5. Again: as the first creation was wholly God's work, Gen. 
i. 1; Job xxxviii. 4; Prov. xxx. 4, so will the new creation be. 
This is implied in the term (ysvems) paling enesia.' Whether we 
regard it as the second generation of Man (the microcosm,) 
or of the earth and the heavens connected therewith (the 

28 



218 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

macrocosm,) nothing but the creative power of God can accom- 
plish it. Man cannot even commence the work on his own soul, 
any more than he can consummate it in the resurrection and 
glorification of his body. Both the beginning and the end of 
the work are of God. Yet the divine plan required that the 
offer of the kingdom and its blessings should ever be made under 
specific conditions, the rejection or violation of which only 
would or could prevent its immediate outward manifestation and 
realization. In this manner the kingdom was promised to 
Israel at the foot of Sinai, Exod. xix. 5, 6, offered to them 
when they were introduced into Canaan, and again in the full- 
ness of time by John the Baptist and our Lord, but in every 
instance with the same result. In this way God has shown to 
the universe the impotency of corrupted nature to recover 
itself; the utter insufficiency of a dispensation of law to save 
man, and restore the world he made for him, Ps. cxv. 16, to 
its lost place in his kingdom. This view of the subject shows 
the ground and the reasonableness of such passages as Rom. 
ix. 20, 21; Eph. ii. 8, 10; Isa. xlv. 9; lxiv. 8; xxix. 16; Jer. 
xviii. 6; Prov. xvi. 4; Job xxxviii. 5; (Wisd. xv. 7; Sir. 
xxxiii. 13;) Prov. xvi. 4; Job xxxiii. 13. 

6. Einally, many persons stumble at the idea of the personal 
reign of Christ, as the Son of Man or Second Adam, simply 
because they conceive of it erroneously. The proper idea of it 
may be gathered from the preceding observations. No believer 
doubts that our blessed Lord, in his Divine nature, now exer- 
cises personal and direct dominion over all unfallen creatures 
in all worlds. That he does so, is most clearly and unequivo- 
cally taught in the Scriptures. Col. i. 15 — 19; Phil. ii. 9 — 11; 
1 Cor. viii. 6 ; John i. 3 ; Rom. xi. 36 ; Rev. i. 5, 6. But 
when all things on earth shall be restored, Acts iii. 21, and 
this world shall resume its original place in the kingdom of the 
heavens, why should not our Lord, as God-Man, also exercise 
personal and direct dominion in this ? The personal reign of an 
earthly monarch does not imply his constant, visible, personal 
presence, at all times, in every part of his dominions. No 
more does the personal coming and appearance of Christ 
involve his personal continuance on earth in his human nature, 
at all times, and his personal absence from all other parts of 
creation. Nor does the proper idea of his personal reign 
exclude the ministry of creatures, whether angels or glorified 
men. But it does imply the acknowledged supremacy of 
Christ as king by all, Eph. i. 10; Dan. vii. 27; John xviii. 
36, 37; 1 Cor. xv. 23—25; Col. ii. 10; Phil. ii. 10, the ad- 
ministration of his laws as the only authoritative rule of con- 



THE REGENERATION OR PALIXGEXESIA. 219 

duct, and such abiding tokens of his presence as will render 
his power manifest and his government exceedingly glorious. 
See Isa. iv. 5; Deschamp's translation; Medes Works, folio, 
603, 4 ; Jerusalem s Glory, by Jeremiah Burroughs, p. 65. 

The word {jzalrp-e^zaca) regeneration does not occur in the 
LXX. version,* and only in one other place in the New Testa- 
ment. Yet, the meaning of it is plain. It signifies the new 
creation. The verse we regard as parallel in doctrine to Acts 
in. 21; 2 Peter iii. 13: Heb. ii. 5; Rev. xxi. 5; Isa. lxv. 17; 
lxvi. 22 ; xliii. 19 ; Rom. viii. 18 — 23, with this difference, that 
the Saviour here assumes what in most of these passages is 
directly taught. If the doctrine of the physical new creation 
or regeneration of the earth were not elsewhere taught ; on the 
contrary, if it were clear, by the Scriptures, that it is the pur- 
pose of God to let the earth droop and wither under the 
blighting influence of the curse, until he shall have completed 
the number of his elect, and thereupon to annihilate it ; then, 
indeed, we could not ascribe to this word any such meaning. 
On the other hand, if the Scriptures assure us that it is the 
Divine purpose to remove the curse and restore the earth to its 
original beauty and glory, it is much worse than useless to pare 
down the natural and proper meaning of the word, or wrest it 
from its proper meaning, in order to show that the Saviour did 
not employ it in its full and proper sense in the promise we are 
considering. Let us pause, then, to consider briefly some of 
the passages in which the physical regeneration of the earth is 
taught. 

In Acts iii. 21, the apostle Peter speaks of the restitution of 
all things implicitly as the effect or result of the {jzaAcyyvsZO'.a) 
regeneration or second creation of all things, because such a 
work includes, as a necessary effect, the removal of the curse 
and the rectification of all physical and moral natures. The 
fundamental idea the apostle expresses in his second epistle. 
2 Peter iii. 13. In both these passages he had a reference, no 
doubt, to Isa. lxv. 17, and lxvi. 22, to which we will now turn. 
In these prophecies we find that the prophet plainly describes 

* In the Septuagint version we find the words iftB^Jn j^3 T$ J° D ***• 14, 

translated la; &i 7r*xtv yaw/uai (donee veniat immutatio mea, Lat. Yulg.) Elias 
Hutter, in translating this 27th verse of Matt. xix. into Hebrew, adopts the 
word fgji^n from Job. In Bagster's edition of the Hebrew New Testament the 
word is changed to j-flQTritl n&O 1 "!— which conforms more closely to the Greek. 
Job referred, undoubtedly, to the resurrection of his body ; and those who 
understand this word as signifying merely the resurrection of the body, 
would probably prefer Hutter's version. Understood of man, Hutter suf- 
ficiently expresses the sense : but, as applied to world, the version published 
by Bagster is to be preferred. 



220 NOTES ON SCKIPTURE. 

a state of things on the earth ; for he refers to a city on earth, 
to people on earth, to employments on earth. He speaks of the 
building of houses, the planting of vineyards, the propagation 
of inhabitants, different stages of human life, infancy and old 
age. He speaks of a change of condition in words which imply 
identity of place. "The voice of weeping shall be no more 
heard in her," implies that, in former times, the voice of 
weeping had been heard in her. He speaks, also, under the 
same conditions, of the perpetuity of the people. The seed and 
the name of Israel, he assures us, shall for ever afterwards 
endure, and be as permanent as the new heavens and the new 
earth. See Jer. xxxi. 35, 37; xxxiii. 25, 26. These new 
heavens and new earth are, we doubt not, the regeneration to 
which our Lord refers ; and the thrones of judgment he 
promised his apostles over the twelve tribes of Israel are to be 
enjoyed in this new and blessed condition of all things.* 

The apostle Paul, Rom. viii. 18 — 23, evidently refers to the 
same era. He describes the earth as travailing and groaning 
now; but waiting, nevertheless, with intense expectation for a 
glorious change. For the creature, that is, the physical 
creation itself, he says, shall be delivered from its present 
bondage of corruption, and made to share in the glorious liberty 
of the children of God. This deliverance, we conceive, will be 
accomplished by the regeneration of which our Lord spoke. 

We understand Isaiah vi. 3 ; xi. 9 ; xl. 5, as referring to the 
same era and condition of the earth. Rev. xxi. 5, seems to be 
a repetition of the prophecy of Isaiah ; at least the language 
is so similar, that the writer must have had the words of the 
prophet in his mind. 

Those who restrict the word to the resurrection of the bodies 
of the saints, curtail its meaning. It includes physical nature, 
as the passages cited prove; to which we may add, Isaiah 
xxxii. 14, 15; xli. 18, 19; xliii. 19, 20; li. 3; lv. 13; xi. 6, 8; 
xxxv. 9; lxv. 25; Hosea ii. 18. Even the lower orders of 
animal nature will share in it (Isa. xi. ; lxv. 25; Ezek. xxxiv. 
25; Rom viii. 19 — 22) as well as man, and the whole body of 
the elect church. Matt. xxv. 31 — 40; 1 Cor. xv. 43 — 52; 
Philip, iii. 20, 21.f 

* Many learned men, however, take very different views of Isa. lxv. 17, and 
its context. They all depart very widely from the literal sense, bnt in different 
directions. We must reject all of them, or regard this prophecy as one which 
Elias only can rightly interpret. The real difficulty of these learned writers 
is to understand the words of the prophet otherwise than literally as their dis- 
cordance proves. 

f The word in Titus iii. 5, if rightly interpreted, has the same enlarged sense. 
The apostle does not certainly mean that regeneration, or the regeneration, 
is, or consists in a washing or baptism, although he alludes, no doubt, especially 



THE APOSTLES TO SIT ON THRONES. 221 

"When the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of his 
glory." 

In this expression we have a note of the time appointed for 
the fulfilment of the promise. The Saviour promised his 
apostles that they should sit upon thrones in the regeneration, 
at the time when he should sit upon the throne which belongs 
to him as the Son of Man. The regeneration or palingenesia 
he spoke of, is therefore still future. The precise epoch of its 
commencement, as we learn from Matt. xxv. 31, will be reached 
"When the Son of man shall come in his glory and all the holy 
angels with him;" for then will he sit upon the throne of his 
glory. This is a promise, therefore, for which the apostles still 
wait, depending on the faithfulness and the power of their Lord 
and Master. Nor are the twelve tribes of Israel yet gathered. 
This is another note of time, which serves to establish the 
futurity of the regeneration. But many interpreters deny that 
the twelve tribes of Israel ever will be restored, see notes on 
Matt. ii. 18; and although the Saviour does not here expressly 
declare that they shall be, yet he assumes it as a purposed 
event. His words are: 

"Ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve 
tribes of Israel." 

All the terms in which this promise is expressed are very 
striking and significant; thrones — sitting on thrones — judging,. 
or ruling over, the twelve tribes of Israel — in the palingenesia, 
(the regeneration) when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne 
of his glory. The promise hinges on greater events than the 

to the renewed state of man, -while the Saviour had respect generally to the 
renewed state of all things. • The washing of which the apostle speaks is em- 
blematical of the renewed state of man in body, soul, and spirit, the consumma- 
tion of which will be brought about by his resurrection; or the reproduction 
of his body in a new and glorified form at the coming of Christ, which will 
mark also the epoch of the restitution of all things. Acts iii. 21. Hence the 
connection between the word as Paul uses it, and the full and proper sense 
of it, as our Lord uses it. Paul's subject led him to speak of the palingenesia 
only as it respects man ; but the nature or matter of the promise our Lord made 
to the apostles, involved the full sense of the term: for the promise respected 
the universal state of things which shall be, when the Son of Man shall sit on 
the throne of his glory ; when, and not before, the apostles shall be rewarded 
with thrones and dominion. To the same period the Lord referred in Luke 
xxii. 28, 30, and Paul also in 1 Cor. vi. 2 ; — for in that place the scope of his 
subject required it, though he did not there use the word 7rx.\tyyin<rta. as he did 
in Titus iii. 5 ; but his meaning is the same as if he had said (Oi* oIJats ort 
[«v th n-itxeyytvia-iii] oi aytoi rov kotjuov xptvivri) : "Know ye not that [in the regene- 
ration] the saints shall judge the world ?" The use which Paul makes of the 
word 7rx\ryyivtrt* in Titus iii. 5, is an example of synecdoche. He curtails the 
sense, by applying to man (the microcosm) what properly belongs to the world 
(the macrocosm,) with which man is connected; the renovation of both being 
synchronous in the Divine purpose, and the result of one and the same grand 
scheme of the Divine operations. 



222 NOTES ON SCKIPTUKE. 

world has ever yet witnessed. The Saviour assumes that they 
are all unalterably fixed in the Divine purpose, and the very 
fact that he assumes them as certainties, shows his interpreta- 
tion of the Scriptures which predict them. He observes the 
same method in the promise he gave them at the institution of 
the Supper. Luke xxii. 28 — 30. 

Those who refuse to receive these promises in their full and 
literal sense, commit themselves to the work of explaining the 
most important prophecies relating to the destiny of Israel, in 
opposition to the plain and obvious meaning of the language in 
which they are expressed. But all difficulties of interpretation 
disappear, if we but admit, what the Scriptures plainly teach, 
that the present is not the final dispensation of God's govern- 
ment over men on earth, see note on Acts iii. 21 ; but designed 
chiefly for the preparatory work of the gathering of the Church. 
This done, the dispensation will be closed, and the close of it 
will be signalized by the restoration of Israel to the land God 
covenanted to give Abraham for an everlasting possession — the 
coming of the Son of Man for the judgment of all nations, 
Matt. xxv. 31 — the resurrection and glorification of the elect 
Church, and the inauguration of a new dispensation variously 
called, the restitution of all things, Acts iii. 21, the new 
heavens and the new earth, Isa. lxv. 17; 2 Pet. iii. 13, the 
world to come, (z'/jv olxoofievrjv tyjv fisXXouoav, Heb. ii. 5) and in 
this place, the regeneration, during which the apostles, in fulfil- 
ment of this promise of the Saviour, will be entrusted with the 
government of the twelve tribes of Israel, but in what manner 
it is impossible for us to conjecture. See notes on Acts iii. 
22, 23. 

There is nothing preposterous or degrading in the idea of the 
apostles reigning over Israel in the new earth. The reign of 
Jehovah over Israel during the theocracy was personal. 1 Sam. 
viii. 7. He appeared at times in human form, and he gave 
them symbols of his presence in his temple. But the earth 
was not then what it will be in the regeneration of it. How 
can it be degrading to the apostles, or detract from their hap- 
piness, to serve God as kings in the way of his appointment? 
To depreciate the rewards which the Saviour promises, or to 
argue that they are less glorious or desirable than those which 
he might bestow under some different arrangement or ordering 
of things, betrays not only great presumption, but a spirit not 
unlike that which the Lord often rebuked. Mark ix. 33; Matt. 
xx. 21, 26, 27. 

Matt. xix. 29, 30. "And every one that hath forsaken 
houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or 
children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hun- 



ALL BELIEVERS TO RECEIVE REWARDS. 223 

dred-fold, and shall inherit life everlasting. But many that 
are first shall be last, and the last first." 

The promise contained in this verse is distinct from that 
made to the apostles. Among them there was to be an equality. 
Each was promised a throne and dominion, and perhaps a 
separate dominion over a particular tribe. But among those 
who come within the terms of this verse, distinctions of some 
sort would be made. Many first would be last. Many last 
first. The ground of all such distinctions, the parable in the 
next chapter, verses 1 — 16, teaches, is the Divine sovereignty. 

Matt. xx. 1 — 16. The parable recorded in these verses, 
belongs to the category of private instruction, and in this 
respect, is like that in chap, xviii. 21 — 35. It was designed to 
illustrate the principle of the Divine government announced in 
the last verse of the 19th chapter, which is repeated at the 
conclusion of the parable, verse 16, with the additional observa- 
tion "that many are called, but few chosen." This is another 
principle here declared for the first time, and repeated at the 
conclusion of the parable of the marriage. Matt. xxii. 14. The 
expression occurs in no other place. The scope and material 
circumstances of the two parables are different, but they illus- 
trate the same principle. Confining our attention at present 
to the parable of the householder, we observe that only one 
class of the labourers entered the vineyard for a stipulated 
reward. Those who entered the vineyard at the third, sixth, 
ninth, and eleventh hours, engaged in labour without any special 
agreement as to the sum they were to receive. They were con- 
tent to leave their reward to the householder's discretion and 
sense of justice, and for aught that appears, the householder 
would not have employed them on other terms. The first class 
only, therefore, could claim the promised reward as a debt. 
Rom. xi. 6. Another material circumstance is the proportion 
between the time of labour and the reward bestowed. Had the 
reward been proportionate only to the time, those who entered 
the vineyard at the third hour would have received three-fourths 
of a penny ; those who entered at the sixth, ninth, and eleventh 
hours, would have received respectively a halfpenny, a farthing, 
and the third of a farthing. All they received above their 
just reward was mere favour or benevolence shown to them, and 
the greater in proportion as their service was less. Indeed, the 
reward bestowed upon those who wrought only one hour was 
almost wholly a gratuity which they owed to the benevolence of 
the householder. We regard it as another material circum- 
stance, that those who entered the vineyard last were rewarded 
first, and those who entered it first were rewarded last, 
(although as soon as they had the right to demand the sum 



224 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

they had earned) so that the benevolence of the householder 
to those who entered the vineyard at the eleventh hour, was 
marked not only by what he gave them, but by the time and 
manner of giving it. 

We should notice, also, that the whole-day labourers are 
represented as murmurers, having an evil eye. They were not 
good men, therefore, and it was necessary to state this circum- 
stance, in order to show the reason as well as the occasion of 
the householder's remark. Nothing is said to show the character 
of the other labourers — whether they were grateful, or whether 
they would not have murmured also, if they had not been paid 
as much or more in proportion to the time of their labour than 
full day-labourers were paid. Hence we infer that the character 
of the labourers is not a circumstance upon which the instruc- 
tion of the parable depends. Nor do we suppose the penny is 
designed to represent the reward of eternal life. It is material 
only so far as it serves to show the- justice of the householder 
to the murmurers, and his benevolence to those who could claim 
little or nothing as of debt. The parable, as we conceive, turns 
wholly upon the character of the householder, and the design 
of it is to illustrate the Divine sovereignty in the bestowment 
of favours. God is just to all, and "gracious to whom he will 
be gracious." Rom. ix. 15, 17 ; Exod. xxxiii. 19. 

It is to be observed, that both Mark and Luke omit this 
parable. Luke stops with the promise of eternal life, xviii. 30. 
Mark adds to the promise that distinctions of reward will be 
made. "Many first shall be last." Mark x. 31. The reason 
why Matthew adds the parable is to be found, it is probable, in 
the 27th and 28th verses of the preceding chapter. Peter had 
inquired what their reward should be, who had forsaken all and 
followed him. In reply, the Saviour promised him and his 
fellow-apostles peculiar exaltation. They should sit upon 
thrones, and exercise rule over the tribes of Israel. The 
reward of each should not only be great and glorious, but, as 
we may presume, equal. Having made this special promise to 
the twelve, the Saviour added this parable in order to exclude 
the conclusion, which other disciples might derive from it, that 
equal and equally great rewards should be bestowed upon all 
his followers. Had the other Evangelists recorded the question 
of Peter and our Lord's answer, they would, as we conceive, 
also have recorded this parable as a caveat or caution against a 
false conclusion; but having omitted the question and the 
answer, the parable was not necessary. 

If such be the especial use of this parable, it furnishes strong 
internal evidence of the genuineness of Matt. xix. 28, and those 
who would reject that verse as an interpolation, should reject 



CHRIST FORETELLS HIS CRUCIFIXION. 225 

with it this parable also, which no critic hitherto has been bold 
enough to propose. 

Matt. xx. 17, 19. "And Jesus, going up to Jerusalem, 
took the twelve disciples apart in the way, and said to them: 
Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man 
shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, 
and they shall condemn him to death, and shall deliver him 
unto the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify, and 
the third day he shall rise again." Mark x. 32 — 34; Luke 
xviii. 31—34. 

Gur Lord having finally left Galilee, was now on his last 
journey to Jerusalem, and probably had come near to Jericho, 
and with a view to prepare their minds for the severe trials 
they were soon to undergo, he took them aside and repeated to 
them the prediction he had twice already made to them while 
he abode in Galilee, Matt. xvii. 22; xvi. 21, but with some 
additional particulars. We have observed that the first time 
our Lord forewarned them of his sufferings, was immediately 
after Peter had declared the mystery of his person. Matt. 
xvi. 21. It was also after the death of John the Baptist. The 
next time was soon after his transfiguration ; and now as the 
events drew near, he recurs with solemn emphasis to the same 
distressing subject. On the second occasion, Matthew says 
they were exceeding sorry. Mark says, ix. 32, they under- 
stood not his saying, and were afraid to ask him. Luke adds, 
ix. 45, to what Mark says, that his saying was hid from them, 
and they understood it not. On the present occasion, Luke 
notices only the effect the communication made upon their 
minds. He says, xviii. 34 : " They understood none of these 
things, and this saying was hid from them, neither knew they 
the things which were spoken." 

This blindness of the apostles can only be accounted for by 
their full and firm belief of our Lord's Messiahship, and equally 
full persuasion, that none of those things could happen to the 
true Messiah. Their blindness was the joint effect of truth 
and error, which seem to have taken equally fast hold of their 
minds. Publicly, the Saviour, several times afterwards, alluded 
to the same events in a more general way, Matt. xxi. 39; 
John xii. 24, 32 ; Matt. xxvi. 2, 12 ; Mark xiv. 8 ; John xii. 7, 
and privately again at the last supper with his disciples, Matt, 
xxvi. 24; Mark xiv. 21; Luke xxii. 22, and in the long dis- 
course which followed, related only by John, xiii. 21, 33 ; xiv. 
30, 31; xvi. 5, 28, &c. 

The subject he knew was harrowing to their feelings. He 
disclosed the particulars of his sufferings by degrees, and never 
in direct terms, except on the three occasions before mentioned, 
29 



226 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

and then in a way to give them no unnecessary pain. Having 
thus formally thrice predicted in direct terms his sufferings 
and death, that when they came to pass, the apostles might 
remember his prediction, and believe, we observe that in his 
last interview he alluded to them only in general terms, show- 
ing the most delicate regard to their love of him. But let us 
notice the particulars. 

On the first occasion he designated the place of his suffer- 
ings — Jerusalem: He described his sufferings only in general 
terms — shall suffer many things : His rejection — by the elders, 
chief priests ; and scribes: His death — be killed. Matt. xvi. 12; 
Mark viii. 31; Luke ix. 22. 

On the second occasion he spoke of his betrayal or delivery 
into the hands of men: His death — they shall kill him: but 
Luke mentions only his betrayal. Matt. xvii. 22, 23; Mark 
ix. 31 ; Luke ix. 44. 

On the last occasion, he names Jerusalem as the place of 
his sufferings — his betrayal, which is to the chief priests and 
elders: Wis condemnation — they shall condemn him to death: 
Mis delivery to the G-entiles — they shall deliver him to the 
Gentiles. Their cruel treatment of him — they shall mock and 
scourge and spit upon him, and crucify and kill him. Matt. xx. 
18, 19; Mark x. 33, 34; Luke xviii. 31, 33. On each occa- 
sion he adds that he shall rise again from the dead on the 
third day. 

We observe this last prediction was the most circumstan- 
tial of all. But there was one particular which he still with- 
held — who it was that should betray him. John xiii. 21 ; Luke 
xxii. 21; Mark xiv. 18; Matt. xxvi. 21. This circumstance 
most nearly concerned their own body; and had it been dis- 
closed without the name of the traitor, would have caused 
anguish to those whom the Saviour designed to spare. Matt. 
xxvi. 22 ; Mark xiv. 19. 

Of all the events foretold, none, it is probable, was more 
repugnant to the preconceived opinions of the apostles, than 
his delivery to the G-entiles and his death by crucifixion; and 
for this reason, it is probable, the Saviour withheld them until 
the last. How could they conceive that the Messiah, as they 
believed him to be, who was to deliver them and their nation 
from the power of the Gentiles, should be delivered into their 
hands and ignominiously put to death by them ? Perhaps it was 
to this part of the last prediction that Luke especially refers 
when he says, "And this saying was hid from them." Luke 
xviii. 34. 

But however we may explain it, no fact is more clear than 
that the apostles at this time were profoundly ignorant of the 



AMBITION OF THE APOSTLES. 227 

future. They had no conception of a suffering Messiah any 
more than the rest of their countrymen ; nor more than the 
unbelieving Jews of the present clay have. The work of redemp- 
tion in all its parts was an impenetrable mystery to them, until 
they were taught it by the Holy Spirit. 

We add, in conclusion, that our Lord's demeanour on his last 
journey to Jerusalem, especially as he drew near to the city, 
was peculiarly impressive. He led the way with a steadfast 
purpose, Luke ix. 51, and the apostles followed with amazement 
and fear. Mark x. 32. 



CHAPTER VI. 

Drinking of Christ's Cup. — The Apostles not to be ambitious. — Christ came to 
serve. — Melchizedec the "Son of Man." — Christ's entry into Jerusalem. — His 
lamentation over Jerusalem. — His expulsion of the Money Changers. — The 
Homage of the Children. — The withering of the Fig-tree. — Christ is questioned 
by the Priests. — Christ's response. — Christ's further response. — The Xation 
reject Him. — The Parable of the Vineyard. — The Parable of the Marriage. 

Matthew ^x. 20, 21. " Then came to him the mother of Zebe- 
dee's children, with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a 
certain thing of him. And he said to her, What wilt thou ? She 
said unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on 
thy right hand and the other on thy left, in thy kingdom." 

According to Mark x. 35, it was James and John who made 
this request, and it is evident, from Matthew's account, that 
they at least joined in it, verse 22. But we may well marvel 
that these brethren should even allow such a request to be made, 
after the promise the Lord had given them, as well as to the other 
apostles, in reply to the question of Peter. Matt. xix. 27, 28. 
He had promised each a throne and dominion over a tribe of 
Israel in the world to come (palingenesia.) Yet not content, 
they would occupy the thrones nearest to the King, their Mas- 
ter. We must remember, too, that James and John had wit- 
nessed the transfiguration, and must have had higher conceptions 
of the glory to which they aspired than any other of the apos- 
tles excepting Peter. The request, and the indignation it 
excited, reveal the imperfection of their knowledge and charac- 
ter at that time, and with this view especially we notice the 
passage. One would think that the lowest place in such a king- 
dom would be glorious enough to satisfy their loftiest wish. 
But the request displayed their ignorance, and so the Lord told 
them. It was made no doubt with the full belief that the 



228 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

expected kingdom was soon to be established in outward glory 
at Jerusalem, and of course before their death. The other 
apostles, though with less knowledge of the glory of the king- 
dom, displayed the same ambitious spirit. They were incensed 
at what they regarded an unjustifiable attempt to forestall the 
most eminent places, verse 24 ; and to this, the manner in which 
the request was made perhaps contributed. The mother leads 
the way, as if to prevent the failure of her sons, by her influ- 
ence. She does not at first specify her wish, but desires the 
Saviour to commit himself by a promise to grant whatever she 
should ask, as if her thoughts and wishes were unknown to 
him. While the narrative is true to nature, it shows how little 
our Lord's character was understood by his most favoured dis- 
ciples, notwithstanding the wonderful displays of it which he 
had made. 

Matt. xx. 22. " But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not 
what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall 
drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism I am baptized 
with? They say unto him, We are able." 

The question thus interposed by the Saviour, before he an- 
swered the mother's request, was designed to call the attention 
of the mother and her sons to its import. There was a cup to 
be drunk of, and a baptism to be experienced, before ^hey could 
reach the thrones they coveted. Such was the plan the Father 
had ordained. In answering the question affirmatively, they 
answered ignorantly. Of themselves they could do neither. 
Hence the Saviour confirmed their answer with a promise of 
Divine power, as if he had said : Ye know neither what ye ask, 
nor what ye say ; but I grant you this. 

Matt. xx. 23. " Ye shall" [be enabled by the Divine power 
and grace to] " drink indeed of my cup, and to be baptized 
with the baptism that I am baptized with." 

These words we regard as a promise in answer to the mother's 
request. It was not the thing she asked, but what the Saviour 
saw proper to grant. It was an assurance to these brethren, 
that they should be sharers with him in sufferings and glory, 
see Rev. i. 9, and an assurance also of his Divine aid to endure 
the one and attain the other. 

Matt. xx. 23. "But to sit on my right hand and on my 
left is not mine to give, but [or except to those] for whom it is 
prepared of my Father." 

By these words the Saviour denies, or rather refuses to pro- 
mise beforehand, the distinctions especially requested ; leaving 
them to the disposal of the Divine decree, in conformity with 
which he would, in all things, regulate and administer his king- 



DRINKING OF CHRIST'S CUP. . 229 

dom.* This (23d) verse then contains a promise made and a 
promise withheld. 

But according to the common interpretation it contains no 
promise whatever — only a prediction of sufferings, expressed 
under the two forms of "drinking of a cup," and "being bap- 
tized." The sense, however, appears to be: "Ye shall indeed 
drink of my cup of sorrows, see Matt. xxvi. 39, and be bap- 
tized with my baptism, by which your souls shall first be 
renewed and sanctified, and your bodies at last be glorified and 
made like unto my own body of glory, see Philip, iii. 21 ; 
1 John iii. 2 ; Rom. viii. 29 ; but to sit on my right hand and 
on my left, enjoying the first places in my kingdom, is not 
mine to give, except to those for whom it has been prepared by 
my Father." See the notes on Acts ii. The prediction of suf- 
ferings is emblematically represented by the words " drink of 
my cup." The promise of glorification is involved in the word 
"baptism." Thus understood, the words beautifully illustrate 
the gracious character of the Saviour. The mother asked for 
glory and distinction in glory, for her two sons. The Saviour 
promised them glory, great glory, not the reverse of what they 
desired. See Luke xi. 11, 12. But it was a glory to be 
attained only through sufferings (drinking of his cup,) which 
his grace should strengthen them to endure. 

It is a further objection to the common interpretation that 
neither James nor John suffered death by crucifixion. James 
was put to death by the sword. Acts xii. 2. John died, it 
is supposed, a natural death, at an advanced age, after hav- 
ing suffered severe persecutions. These we may regard as ful- 
filling the prediction, "Ye shall indeed drink of my cup." 

Matt. xx. 24. "And when the ten heard it they were 
moved with indignation against the two brethren." 

Matthew, the writer of this Gospel, was one of the ten here 
spoken of, and he records this fact as an evidence of the imper- 
fection of his own and their character. They did not even 
understand the import of the Lord's reply to the mother's 
request. Peter, who was with James and John on the Mount 
of Transfiguration, and who shared in the common indignation, 

* The interpolated words in the English version, " it shall be given" to them, 
&c, should be stricken out. Our Lord elsewhere represents himself as the 
sovereign arbiter of the rewards of his kingdom, Luke xix. 11 — 27; John v. 
22, 27 ; Matt, xxviii. 18 ; John xvii. 2; xiii. 3. The rendering of the Syriac ver- 
sion is in conformity with that above given. See Fabricius' Lat. version, and Mur- 
dock's Eng. version of the Syriac New Test., also Tremellius.- Diodati interpo- 
lates the words sard dato; Erasmus, continget; the Vulgate, vobis; Montanus 
renders verbatim, without interpolation. The particle 'aKka is sometimes 
used in the sense of except. See LXX. in Numb. xxxv. 33; Dan. ii. 11; 
Mark iv. 22 ; 2 Cor. v. 4. 



230 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

could more justly appreciate their ambitious desires than the 
others. Perhaps he, of all, felt it the most keenly. All 
seemed to ascribe the request to the sons and not to the mother, 
whom they seem to have regarded as the instrument of their 
ambition. The effect it produced on the minds of all, shows 
one motive of our Lord, for enjoining secrecy upon the three, 
whom he permitted to witness his Transfiguration and glory. 
It was the favour shown to James and John, perhaps, which 
influenced them to make this request. But we add, how dif- 
ferent must the views and the feelings of this Evangelist have 
been when he composed his Gospel. The Holy Spirit had 
taught him the meaning of the Saviour's words, and shown him 
something of the nature and glory of the kingdom which they 
all then ignorantly judged of by the kingdoms of this world. 
The day of Pentecost produced a wonderful transformation of 
the character of the apostles intellectually and morally. 

Matt. xx. 25 — 27. "But Jesus called them and said, Ye 
know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over 
them," [the nations, their subjects] "and they that are great, 
exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among 
you; but whosoever will be great among you let him be your 
minister, and whosoever will be chief among you let him be 
your servant." Mark x. 45. 

All the apostles had taken it for granted that the same 
system and arrangement of things which they observed in the 
world would continue to subsist in the kingdom they expected. 
This misconception is apparent from the passage just considered, 
and our Lord, in these verses, takes occasion to correct it. He 
told them that although they should be princes in his kingdom, 
they would be most unlike the princes of this world, for they 
lord it over their subjects; but in his kingdom, places of emi- 
nence and power would be places of service, and the greatest 
eminence would be inseparably joined with the humblest ser- 
vice. As if he had said: "I have promised you thrones and 
dominion over the tribes of Israel, but do not think that you 
will exercise it after the manner of the princes of this world." 

"The great law of my kingdom, is the law of love. Your 
office will be to impart good to those whom you will rule over, 
and serve them, not to be served by them. In so doing, you 
will most resemble God, whose nature it is to impart blessings 
to the humblest as well as the most exalted of his creatures, 
without recompense, which the infinite fulness of his nature 
renders him incapable of receiving." Ps. 1. 7 — 14. 

It cannot be denied, however, that this preconceived opinion 
of the apostles, while they were yet unsanctified, has greatly 
prevailed in the visible Church, almost from its origin, notwith- 



CHRIST CAME TO SERVE. 231 

standing these words of the Saviour. The hierarchy of 
Rome — while assuming for its sovereign pontiff the title, 
jServus Servorum Dei — has exercised lordship over the Church 
and the world, after the manner of Gentile princes ; and other 
branches of the Church, since the Reformation, have frequently 
lost sight of, perhaps quite forgotten, the kind of dominion the 
Saviour promised — even while professing to follow this funda- 
mental law. 

What our Lord said on this occasion to the twelve apostles, 
he said to all his elect people. See Rev. i. 6 ; iii. 21. And if 
it be inquired, what occasions there can be for such rule or 
service, and what field vast enough for the unceasing employ- 
ment of their whole body, we can only answer, we know not. 
Our conceptions on these questions may, in other respects, be 
as far from the reality as were the conceptions of the apostles 
upon the nature of the pre-eminence they coveted. But as we 
are taught expressly that the happiness of the elect will consist 
essentially in service, we confidently infer that a service ample 
enough to engage all their energies will be assigned to them. 
Luke xix. 17 — 19. Something of this kind seems to be inti- 
mated in Luke xvi. 9 — an obscure passage — the precise meaning 
of which it is impossible for us to apprehend, without more 
knowledge of the economy of the world of Redemption. See 
Heb. i. 14; ii. 5. Besides, we know that in the "Father's 
house are many mansions," John xiv. 2; and to all these the 
dominion of our Lord extends. The creation is vast already, 
infinitely beyond our highest conceptions; and for aught we 
know — rather as we have reason to believe, John v. 17 — the 
creative energies of the Divine nature will be for ever employed 
in enlarging it on every border. But however we may specu- 
late, thus much we know, that the Lord will provide the means 
of fulfilling everything he has promised or purposed. 

Matt. xx. 28. " Even as the Son of Man came not to be 
ministered unto [served] but. to minister, [serve others] and 
[rather say, even] to give his life a ransom of many." 

Our Lord enforces his doctrine by his example. As Son of 
Man, he was and is the Lord of the world. See notes on 
Matt. xvi. 27. As if he had said, "If I, the King of the 
kings and Lord of the lords of the whole earth have come to 
do service to the humblest of men — my creatures, my subjects; 
not to be served by them ; you ought to dismiss these low and 
grovelling views of greatness. My example, not the example 
of the princes of the Gentiles, is worthy of your imitation and 
love." John xiii. 15. His works of beneficence they had wit- 
nessed in many forms, which they would have been well pre- 
pared to appreciate, could they have conceived adequately of 



232 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

the majesty and glory of his nature. One service, however, 
greater than all, and inconceivable to them, yet remained ; it 
was his sacrificial work, to which he referred by the last words 
of this verse — " even to give his life a ransom for many." See 
Rom. v. 7, '8; John x. 11. Upon this clause we add a few 
observations. 

The act of giving or offering his life as a ransom, our Lord 
predicates of himself as Son of Man. It was an act appro- 
priate in its nature only to the priestly office. It follows, 
therefore, that as Son of Man he ever has been a priest as well 
as a king. It was shown in a former note, Matt. xvii. 22, 23, 
that as the King and Lord of Nature he was its Pontiff — his 
sovereignty and priesthood being commensurate and insepa- 
rable. His relation, as the Son of Man, to this world, as its 
King and universal Lord, is most explicitly taught in various 
forms. Ps. viii. 6, 7, 8; Matt. xiii. 41; xvi. 27, 28; xix. 28; 
xxv. 31—46; John v. 27; Acts xvii. 31; Rev. i. 13; Dan. 
vii. 13, 14. His dominion is, in the fullest sense, " an ever- 
lasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and. his kingdom 
that which shall not be destroyed." When he shall enter upon 
it in outward glory, see 1 Tim. vi. 15, according to this pre- 
diction of Daniel, Satan shall have no power again to mar it — 
all that is offensive to Divine purity in the whole earth shall be 
expelled from it. Matt. xiii. 41. All his enemies, including 
the powers of darkness as well as rebellious men, will have 
been subjected to him, Matt. xxii. 44; Ps. ex. — the curse, and 
all the evils it has entailed, cast out, Rev. xxi. 3 — 5, and all 
things restored to a beauty and glory transcending that in 
which they were at first created. Over the new world, the 
Son of Man, as the Second Adam, will exercise eternal domi- 
nion. The means by which this ineffably glorious result is 
now being wrought out, are his sacrificial work as the Son of 
Man, the universal Pontiff, and Lord of Nature. 

If we consider, in connection with these two functions, his 
attributes of wisdom, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth, we 
shall best approximate a proper conception of the King- of 
Righteousness and King of Peace, Isa. ix. 6, 7, whom Paul 
describes in the fifth, sixth, and seventh chapters of his Epistle 
to the Hebrews. By interpreting the names Melchizedec, 
Melechsalem, Gen. xiv. 18, the apostle intimated that the 
principal thing to be regarded was, their signification; and of 
whom, we may now inquire, can the description he gives us of 
that great personage who met Abraham be predicated but the 
Son of Man? See the notes on Matt. ix. 4, 25—27; xii. 2, 
43—45, 46—50; xiii. 37—43; xiv. 18—21, 22, 23, 32; xvi. 



IS MELCHIZEDEC THE SON OE MAN? 233 

6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 27, 28; xvii. 2, 9, 22, 23, 27; xviii. 11. 
Consider : 

(1.) He was without father, without mother, without descent, 
or any earthly genealogy, having neither beginning of days, 
nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of God. This is 
said of him, as we conceive, not as the seed of the woman nor 
as the seed of Abraham, nor as the seed of David, Gen. iii. 15; 
Matt. i. 1, but as the Son of Man, the second Man, the last 
Adam, the Lord from heaven. 1 Cor. xv. 45 — 49. As the 
seed of the woman, the son of David, the son of Abraham, his 
genealogy is given, Luke iii. 23 — 38; Matt. i. 1 — 16; but as 
the Second Adam, the Man of the everlasting covenant, he was 
with the Father before the world was. John xvii. 5; vi. 62; 
iii. 13; Isa. liii. 8; Prov. viii. 23—31; xxx. 4. Of the Son 
of Man, therefore, this description is literally and fully true. 

Some commentators endeavour to evade the plain meaning 
of these words of the apostle by supposing they intend no 
more than that no genealogy of Melchizedec is given in the 
Scriptures ; or that his father and mother were not of royal 
rank, see Stuart on Hebrews ; but this mode of interpretation 
would make strange work of the Scriptures, if applied to every 
person whose genealogy is not given in the Scriptures, or to 
any other person except the Son of Man. Concerning him, 
indeed, the inspired prophet inquires, "Who shall declare his 
generation?" Isa. liii. 8. 

(2.) Consider, again, what the apostle says of the priesthood 
of Melchizedec. To be made a priest after or according to this 
order, is to be made a priest, not after the law of a carnal com- 
mandment, but after the power of an endless life. Heb. vii. 16. 
He alleges the one hundred and tenth Psalm as a proof that 
Melchizedec still liveth. Heb. vii. 8. His great argument 
against the perpetuity and sufficiency of the Aaronic priest- 
hood is, that men who are made priests according to that order 
die; which could not be affirmed of Melchizedec and his order, 
for he continueth for ever, and his priesthood is unchangeable, 
that is, does not pass from one person to another. Heb. 
vii. 23, 24. 

What man, having an earthly, or human genealogy, could be 
a priest of this order but the promised seed of the woman, the 
seed of Abraham, of Judah, of David, Jesus the son of Joseph ? 
Now the apostle is careful to remark, Heb. vii. 14, that of the 
tribe of Judah, Moses spake nothing concerning the priesthood, 
and consequently no man of that tribe could be a priest accord- 
ing to the order of Aaron. See Heb. viii. 4. But the Son of 
Man — the Heir, the Lord, the Pontiff of the world — having 
become incarnate in the tribe of Judah, in fulfilment of God's 
30 ' 



234 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

covenant with David, see notes on Matt. ix. 4, in order that 
he might have somewhat (viz. the body of flesh which he took) 
to offer, Heb. viii. 3 ; x. 5, fulfilled his own proper office of 
priest according to the order of his higher relations as Son of 
Man; that is to say, as the Christ, the covenanted seed of Da- 
vid, he exercised a priesthood above the order of his incarnate 
relations to the race, and according to his relations to the world 
from its creation, as Son of Man. It was this which consti- 
tuted him a priest according to the order of Melchizedec. This 
could not be, if Melchizedec had been any other than the Son 
of Man. For if Melchizedec were a mortal man, then he could 
not have had that which is essential to his own order, for which 
our Lord was denominated a priest after his order ; but if an 
immortal man, then he could be no other than the Son of Man. 

(3.) Again ; if the priesthood of Melchizedec be perpetual, 
and Melchizedec himself a priest (etc to drqpexss, Heb. vii. 3) 
for ever, then our Lord as Son of Man was Melchizedec ; other- 
wise it would follow that there are two perpetual priesthoods, 
or a succession of one priest to another in that priesthood, or 
two priests at the same time in the same office, either of which 
is impossible. And if it be essential to the order of Melchi- 
zedec that the priest should intercede within the veil, then the 
Son of Man, in the person of Jesus, must be the Melchizedec 
of whom Moses, and David, and Paul wrote ; or there would be 
two intercessors within the veil, which is contrary to the Scrip- 
tures ; for none but Jesus ever did or ever will intercede within 
the veil. It may be added that the similitude between the 
priesthood of Christ and that of Melchizedec, pointed out by 
David in the 110th Psalm, has respect to the perpetuity and 
eternity of the latter. Hence, again, we infer that Melchizedec 
and the Son of Man were one and the same person, only under 
different manifestations and dispensations. 

(4.) If we may translate Heb. vii. 1 (ouro^ yap 6 MeXycasSsx) 
by the same rule the translators of our version observed in ren- 
dering Heb. viii. 10 (ore oLtyj tf deaOyjxrj) "for this is the cove- 
nant," etc., we get a direct solution of the apostle's meaning; 
for the verse would then be read thus : " For this" — referring to 
Jesus, the forerunner, in the preceding verse — "is the Melchi- 
zedec (king of righteousness,) king of Salem (king of peace,) 
priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham returning from 
the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him."* 

* These kings, as all the kings of the earth ever have been, were subordi- 
nate to the Son of Man as the rightful Lord and King of the whole earth, and 
they were in rebellion against him. The appearance of Melchizedec, therefore, 
to meet the returning victor, and what he said to him, is not to be regarded as a 
courtesy of friendly congratulations, such as one earthly king might show or 



THE SON OF MAN THE TRUE MELCHIZEDEC. 235 

In this manner Erasmus, no mean authority, interpreted the 
verse. "Nam hie erat Melchizedec, rex Salem Pontifex Dei 
Altissimi," etc. The meaning of the apostle is, that Jesus, 
whom he urged upon them to acknowledge and receive as the 
promised Messiah, is a priest superior to their own priests of 
the order of Aaron, being a priest according to the order of 
Melchizedec, because as the Son of Man he is the Melchizedec 
who met Abraham, and blessed him, and received tithes of 
him, as being by far his inferior. See notes on Matt. xvii. 
22, 23.* 

The clause of the verse (28th) upon which these observations 
are founded, may then be paraphrased thus: "Even as the 
Son of Man, the true Melchizedec, came forth from the Father 
and came into the world (John xvi. 28) and took unto himself 
a body in the seed of Abraham (Heb. ii. 16,) in order that he 
might, as a priest of his own order, offer it up on the cross as a 
sacrifice, a ransom for many." 

This was the end for which he came ; for although at first 
he came to the nation of Israel as Messiah, and preached the 
kingdom to them that they might receive him in that character 
as their king ; yet it was foreseen that the nation would reject 
him, as they virtually did when they rejected John the Baptist, 
and from that time forth he ministered to those who would 
receive him as the Son of Man and Saviour, and at the 
appointed time laid down his life a ransom for many of that 
people and for the redemption of the world, which was by 
inheritance his own.f 

Matt. xxr. 1 — 11. The triumphal entry of our Lord into 
Jerusalem was a remarkable event. Nothing like it had 
occurred before. It was at variance with his previous life, see 
Matt. xii. 19, and it must have greatly perplexed the priests 

send to another, but as an interference of a superior of both the victor, who 
acted in this affair as his minister, and the vanquished; having the right to 
rule over and command or dispose of both, and award between them at his 
pleasure. 

* J. H. Kurtz, in his treatise on the Old Covenant, vol. i. p. 220—223, \ 55, 
published in Clark's Foreign Theological Library, vol. xxi., New Series, regards 
Melchizedec as the highest and last representative of the Noachic covenant, 
and as the last independent representative of the Shemitic population, which 
had been vanquished by the Canaanites. In some respects this author thinks 
he was superior to Abraham, but in other respects inferior. The discussion is 
elaborate, but does not remove the difficulties that attend every hypothesis, 
which assumes an earthly although unknown genealogy of Melchizedec. 

f In Rev. v. 10, the redeemed are represented as praising the Lamb because 
he had made them kings and priests unto God ; and in Rev. xx. 6, it is declared, 
that those who have part in the^rs^ resurrection shall be priests of God and 
of Christ. See 1 Pet. ii. 5, 9. Did it ever occur to the reader to inquire of 
what order their priesthood will be? See John xvii. 22 ; Philip, iv. 21 ; 1 John 
iii. 2 ; Heb. ii. II. 



236 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

and Pharisees who had already resolved to put him to death. 
John xi. 53. John gives us precisely the date of it in reference 
to the approaching passover. By comparing John xii. 1 and 
12, it appears to have taken place on the fifth day before that 
festival, and according to our reckoning on Sunday, the Sunday 
following being the day of his resurrection. The interval was 
thickly crowded with the most wonderful events the world has 
ever witnessed. The history of these events, and the public 
and private discourses our Lord delivered during that short 
space of time, occupy the last eight chapters of this Gospel. 
The space allotted by each of the Evangelists* to the closing 
week of our Lord's ministry, compared with that allotted to 
the preceding part of it, shows not only the transcendent 
importance of its events, but the deep interest which they felt 
in them. 

But there is another view in which we should consider this 
occurrence. In the preceding notes the reader's attention has 
been called to the majesty and glory of our Lord's nature as a 
man, his wonderful attributes of wisdom and power, and his 
dominion over all physical and spiritual natures. That such a 
being should accept a triumph whose crowning glory was the 
hosannas of children, shows his great condescension, and 
justifies the conclusion that there was a much deeper meaning 
in the transaction than those who witnessed it discerned. 
Matthew alleges expressly, that this entry of our Lord into 
Jerusalem, and the manner of it, were a fulfilment of prophecy, 
Zech. ix. 9, and so does John, xii. 15. It was a sign by which 
Jerusalem might know her king; and however minute or trivial 
it might appear to the careless and worldly Jews, it must be 
fulfilled. John xix. 28 ; x. 35. He was the king — God's king 
over the whole earth — of whom it had been declared, Psalm 
ii. 6, 7: "Yet have I set MY king upon my holy hill of Zion;" 
and this was the sign by which his approach might be known : 
" Behold thy king cometh unto thee, meek and sitting upon an 
ass, the foal of an ass." But let us attend to the circumstances 
of the narrative. 

Matt. xxi. 1, 2. " And when they drew nigh unto Jerusalem, 
and were come to Bethphage unto the Mount of Olives, then 
sent Jesus two of his disciples, saying, Go into the village over 
against you." 

Our Lord had advanced from Bethany, which was fifteen 
furlongs, or nearly two miles distant from Jerusalem, to Beth- 

* The last six chapters of Mark's Gospel — from the 28th verse of the nine- 
teenth chapter of Luke to the end — from the 12th verse of the twelfth chapter 
of John to the 23d verse of the twentieth chapter. 



THE POWER OF CHRIST'S WILL. 237 

phage, a village supposed to have been somewhat, though not 
much, nearer the city. See Luke xix. 29. There he stopped 
for a few moments, it may be presumed, to make the necessary 
preparation for his entry in the manner predicted by the 
prophet. He was surrounded by a vast multitude, Matt. 
xxi. 8, greater, perhaps, than ever before, who were going up 
to the approaching festival. From Bethphage he sent two of 
his disciples to a village not named by either Evangelist, but 
quite near, and, perhaps, in sight, giving them a direction which 
evinced both his knowledge and his power. 

Matt. xxi. 2. "And straightway [ebdeco^ readily, without 
seeking) ye shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her," 
"whereon never man sat." Mark xi. 2, Luke xix. 30. 

This direction may remind the reader of that he gave to 
Peter respecting the tribute money, Matt. xvii. 27, and of 
another he soon afterwards gave to the two disciples he sent to 
prepare the passover. Mark xiv. 12 — 16; Luke xxii. 8 — 10. 
Nor can we regard the words "whereon never man sat," as 
unimportant. They are the words of the Saviour, and two of 
the Evangelists carefully note them. Their design, perhaps, 
was to show the submissiveness of the untrained animal to the 
Saviour's will, and, in this view, it may be classed with the 
miracle wrought for the payment of the tribute money, Matt, 
xvii. 27, and thus be intended as a further exemplification of 
the dominion ascribed to him in the eighth Psalm. 

Matt. xxi. 3. "And if any one say aught to you, ye shall 
say, The Lord hath need of them, and straightway he will send 
them." 

What the Saviour anticipated, we learn from Mark xi. 5, and 
Luke xix. 33, occurred. The owners, Luke xix. 33, observing 
the unceremonious manner in which their property was about 
to be taken, interposed: "Why loose ye the colt?" The 
motive for this question is not explained. Whether they appre- 
hended trouble or danger from untying the colt, or merely 
regarded the act as an improper interference with their rights, 
we can only conjecture. Bengel supposes that the owners were 
devoted friends of the Lord Jesus. But of this there is no 
evidence. We suppose that they would as readily have con- 
sented if they had been strangers, or even enemies to him. It 
seems much more probable that the recording of this circum- 
stance was designed to show the power of the Saviour's will ; 
and thus considered, it may remind the reader again of Mark 
xiv. 14, 15; and Luke xxii. 8 — 10. Besides, the title which 
he assumed, and bade his messengers declare — the lord — 
1YW seems to have respect to his universal headship over the 



238 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

earth, as Son of Man, rather than to the special relation he 
bore to his disciples and familiar friends. See John xiii. 13. 
We may add, that the fulfilment of prophecy finds neither 
impediments in the opposition of enemies, nor assistance from 
the favour of friends. If we may adopt this view as the true 
one, we have in this chapter three notable examples of the 
power of the Saviour's will, see verses 2, 3, 19, as well as a 
direct reference, verse 16, to the eighth Psalm, in which his 
dominion, also as Son of Man, over created natures, is 
described. See notes on Matt. viii. 28 — 32. 

But we must not leave this passage without noticing the 
majesty of the expression, "The Lord hath need of them." 
As if he had said: The Son of Man — the Lord of the world, 
requires their services, not for his own ease or convenience, for 
we do not read that he rode at any other time during his public 
ministry, but for the fulfilment of prophecy, as we are informed 
in the next verses. 

Matt. xxi. 4, 5. " All this was. done, that it might be ful- 
filled which was spoken by the prophet, [Zech. ix. 9] saying, 
Tell ye the daughter of Zion, [Jerusalem] Behold thy king 
cometh unto thee, meek and sitting upon an ass, and [rather 
say even] the foal of an ass," [used to a yoke] or, as John 
quotes, "Fear not, daughter of Zion, behold, thy king cometh, 
sitting on an ass's colt."* 

Neither Mark nor Luke quotes this or any other prophecy 
as having been fulfilled on this occasion; and John omits the 

* This verse differs in some respects from the corresponding verses of the 
other Evangelists. Some critics regard the words (\m bvov kzi 7ra>xov) "upon 
an ass and a colt," as an example of hendiadys, and consequently suppose that 
only the colt was brought by the disciples, according to the representation 
of the other Evangelists. They rectify the other variations according to this 
idea. Thus in verse 7, for i7r*va> ctbrm they read i7r*.va> tturw or i7rava> hoc \% 
abrmv. See Dr. Owen Bowyer's Grit. Conj. This explanation does not fully 
meet the difficulty. It is plain from Matthew, that two animals, the ass and 
her colt, were brought by the disciples, and it is plain from the other Evange- 
lists, that the Lord entered the city riding on the colt. Bengel says, " our 
Lord rode on the foal, but employed also the mother as a companion to the foal" 
but why, he does not explain. We suggest that it was for the more punctual 
fulfilment of the prophecy. The word Fi^fi^ (athnoth) is rendered in the 

LXX. by the word Cn-o^vytov, which word Matthew adopts. It signifies a 
draught animal, a beast of burden. Accordingly, it is rendered in the Geneva, 
Cranmer's, Wickliffe's, and the Bishops' translations of the Bible, the foal of 
an ass used to the yoke. Assuming the sense of the Septuagint, as conveying 
the proper meaning of the prophet, the Evangelist Matthew differs from the 
others, chiefly in being more particular ; for the purpose, it may be presumed, 
of showing how minutely our Lord's conduct, on this occasion, corresponded 
with the words of the prophecy. He took care that nothing should be want- 
ing to the sign or proof which he was now about to exhibit to the nation, 
that he was the king in whom the prophet bade them to rejoice greatly. 
Zech. ix. 9. 



Christ's entry into Jerusalem. 239 

circumstance of the Saviour sending two disciples to the village, 
and the directions he gave them. He says, however, that none 
of them understood at that time the meaning of the transaction ; 
but after "Jesus was glorified, then remembered they that these 
things were written of him, and that they had done these things 
unto him." Yet the prophecy is unambiguous, and by thus 
fulfilling it the Lord virtually assumed the character of Zion's 
King. It was an overt act or claim of sovereignty much more 
significant than any which the chief priests alleged against him 
before Pilate. Luke xxiii. 2. It was an answer also to the 
demand of his authority which the priests and elders made on 
the day following in the temple, verse 23, which they might 
have perceived, had they remembered the prophecy and under- 
stood it. 

Matt. xxi. 8. "And a very great multitude spread their 
garments in the way, and others cut down branches from the 
trees and strewed them in the way." 

It appears by John xii. 12, 13, that the multitudes which 
attended him on this occasion, in part at least, came out from 
Jerusalem to meet him, for the news of his coming had reached 
the city. These joined the multitudes which had followed from 
Jericho. Matt. xx. 31. It was a vast concourse, which agi- 
tated {eaecadrj, verse 10) and aroused the whole city. The 
universal inquiry was, Who is this? 

The spreading of their garments and the strewing of branches 
in the way, were tokens of submission to him, as their lawful 
King. 2 Kings ix. 13. It was done (xar orxovojutav) as a part 
of the customary ceremonial of a new accession to the throne. 

Matt. xxi. 9. "And the multitudes that went before and 
that followed, cried, saying, Hosanna to the Son of David; 
Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna 
in the highest." 

By this acclamation they indicated that a king of David's 
race had commenced his reign; an event which was looked for 
by all, and was most grateful to their desires. The word 
hosanna was an invocation of his royal aid and clemency, 
2 Sam. xiv. 4; Zcoaov, 6 ftaatteu$, otoaov, LXX; Serva me, Rex, 
Vulg. ; nsffifin, Heb. ; see also Ps. cxviii. 25, from which this 
acclamation appears to have been adopted, as if they had said: 
"Hosanna to thee, Son of David; Hosanna to Him who is 
in the highest heavens, (QoaMa, doga tco iv (xpeozots dea).") 

We learn from Luke xix. 37-, that the acclamation com- 
menced at the descent of the Mount of Olives, and from 
Matthew xxi. 15, that it was continued until after he had 
entered the temple. The Pharisees, who were displeased, Luke 
xix. 39, regarded this demonstration of the popular favour as a 



240 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

sure indication of his success, John xii. 19; from which we 
may infer the impressiveness of the scene. Matt. xxi. 10. But 
to us it suggests other reflections. 

The time had now come when our Lord, in fulfilment of the 
prophecy, must enter his own city as her king. Matt. v. 35; 
Ps. xlviii. 2; lxxxvii. 3. His entrance, and the manner of it, 
was his own voluntary act; and to give it the force of a true 
sign and proof of his character, it must he attended with cir- 
cumstances which demonstrated the presence of Divine power, 
and with tokens which no deceiver could fabricate. Some of 
these have already been alluded to. See notes on verse 3. The 
same power which he exerted over the untrained animal, and 
over the will of its owners, he exerted over the minds of the 
multitude. Their hosannas, though voluntary, could not have 
been withheld, or had that been possible, even inanimate nature 
would have been subservient to his will. Luke xix. 40.* The 
whole transaction, not excepting its minutest circumstances, 
was arranged and carried on by the power of his will; as the 
homage due to the royal office he had temporarily assumed, in 
order to fulfil the Scriptures. Had their hosannas been uni- 
versal and sincere, the overflowings of holy hearts, he would at 
that time have established his kingdom over them. Luke xix. 
41 — 44; Matt, xxiii. 37. But they were not such; rather 
were they the homage of depraved natures — a homage, never- 
theless, which must needs be rendered, that the prediction of 
the prophet might be fulfilled, verse 4. 

To this occasion, and the events which soon followed, the 
second Psalm undoubtedly refers. Acts iv. 24 — 28; xiii. 33. 
The 6th verse refers especially to this occasion, yet only pro- 
visionally or conditionally: "Yet have I set my king upon my 
holy hill of Zion," [or more literally, "And I have anointed 
my King over Zion, the mountain of my holiness."' 

Jesus, the Son of Man, Jehovah's King over the whole earth, 
was advancing to Mount Zion to take possession of the throne 
of David, and to confirm, at that time, the promises unto the 
fathers, Rom. xv. 8, if their children would receive him with a 
loving and obedient spirit. 

Luke xix. 41 — 44. "And when he was come near, he looked 
on the city and wept over it." 

The word (sxlauoe) translated wept, implies, says Dr. Robin- 
son, "not only the shedding of tears, but every external expres- 
sion of grief." It is a more intensive word than (idaxpucrs) that 
translated wept, in John xi. 35. The passage proves, that as 

* Luke's word «««/>* fovra/ is very expressive. It is the only example of the 
paulo-post-future tense in the New Testament. 



Christ's lamentation ovee Jerusalem. 241 

a man, our Lord felt more deeply for the doomed city and its 
inhabitants than any other man could feel ; for no other man 
could have so vivid an apprehension of the awful judgments 
which their foreseen and guilty rejection of him would bring 
upon them. See Luke xxiii. 27 — 31, and notes on those verses. 
But notice also the contrasts : He was entering the city with 
triumphal displays, amidst the shoutings and rejoicings of 
myriads, in the manner foretold by the prophet, yet lamenting 
aloud — a circumstance not plainly expressed by the prophet, 
yet implied perhaps in the word ^9, ani. See Deut. xvi. 3; 
Prov. xxxi. 5; Gen. xvi. 11; xli. 52, which the LXX. in this 
place render npauz — a rendering which the Evangelist adopts. 
We do not suppose the word necessarily implies the shedding of 
tears, because the Evangelist adds, by way of explanation: 

Luke xix. 42. " Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, 
at least in this thy day, the things which belong to thy peace ! 
But now they are hidden from thine eyes." 

This verse may be rendered : " Oh ! that thou hadst known, 
even thou also" — alluding, perhaps, to his disciples, who ac- 
knowledged him with hearty good will — "the things that make 
for thy peace, in this thy day!" — meaning, perhaps, that very 
day of his entry into Jerusalem, as her rightful King, which was 
a day altogether extraordinary. Ps. cxviii. 24. But now they 
are hidden from thine eyes." See BengeVs G-nomon. 

By the rejection of John the Baptist, the nation virtually 
rejected the Lord Jesus, and the kingdom he offered them. See 
notes on Matt. xiv. 10. By the just judgment of God, there- 
fore, the condition of the nation, as such, was changed. Judi- 
cial blindness had come over the people nationally. The min- 
istry of the Lord, as has been remarked, had also been from 
that time changed, and his labours directed to other ends, viz. 
to the saving of those who would receive him with the obedience 
of faith. John i. 11, 12. Yet no one who considers this verse 
with intelligence and candour, can doubt the willingness (rather 
say the earnest desire) of the Lord Jesus to save the whole 
nation, and to establish his kingdom in outward glory over it, 
even at that time. That he did not do so, was owing wholly to 
their voluntary rejection of him as their King. Matt. xxi. 42; 
Ps. cxviii. 22. Had the nation received him, there would have 
been no occasion for a dispensation like the present, the object 
of which is to gather another elect people to take the place of 
Israel, according to the flesh. Matt. xxi. 42. Yet, had Israel 
nationally received him, a new dispensation, or order of things, 
would, no doubt, have been established, in the blessings of which 
all the nations of the earth would have shared. But by what 
means, or in what manner, the Divine wisdom would have intro- 
31 



242 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

duced it, we presume not to speculate or inquire. The Scrip- 
tures are silent upon the question, as they have been given to 
us, according to the foreknown issues of the Levitical economy. 
Acts. xv. 13 — 18. Yet we have no reason to believe, that the 
recovery of the world from the fall, and the removal of the 
curse, could have been wrought by any other means than the 
death of the Son of Man, its King and Lord. But who would 
have put him to death, if his people had received him ? In the 
providence of God, the chosen people had become subject to 
Gentile power; and Ps. ii. 1, 2; Acts iv. 25 — 27, may cast 
some light upon this subject. Still the question is speculative, 
and ought not to be pressed. Of one thing, however, we are 
sure, that the Divine power and wisdom can never want expe- 
dients to accomplish all the Divine purposes, under all sup- 
posable or possible contingencies and emergencies. 

We are justified, therefore, in considering the scheme of the 
Divine procedure towards Israel, the elect nation, and the world 
at large, as framed with a double aspect; that is, as having 
respect to what God would do, whether Israel would keep or 
break the terms of the covenant. If Israel would obey and 
keep the covenant, then they should be a peculiar people, a 
kingdom of priests. This is expressly declared, Exod. xix. 5, 6. 
They should be exalted to thrones of celestial glory, and be 
for ever with the Lord, and not only behold the glory of their 
King, but be sharers in it and his throne. The nations of the 
earth, from that time forth, would have been subject to their 
rule. But if, on the other hand, they should disobey and break 
the covenant, as it was foreseen they would, then the promised 
kingdom should be taken from them, and given to another 
people, to be chosen of God, and called and collected in such 
manner and at such times as he should see fit. Matt. xxi. 43 ; 
xxii. 8, 9, 11 — 13; Luke xiv. 24; 1 Pet. ii. 9; and see notes 
on Matt. xvii. 22, 23. 

Luke xix. 43, 44. "For the days will come upon thee, that 
thine enemies shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee 
round, and keep thee in on every side, and shall lay thee even 
with the ground, and thy children within thee, and they shall 
not leave in thee one stone upon another, because thou knewest 
not the time of thy visitation." 

This prophecy was pronounced as the Lord Jesus was about 
to enter the city as its King. It was repeated more in detail 
to four of the disciples upon the mount, from which he was then 
descending, two days afterwards, Luke xxi. ; Matt. xxiv. ; 
Mark xiii. ; and the same calamities he alluded to again, when 
bearing his cross to Calvary. Luke xxiii. 29. The true cause 
of them is assigned in the last clause of these verses. The 



EXPULSION OF THE MONEY-CHANGERS. 243 

nation "knew not the time of its visitation," words which 
correspond to the 42d verse. The time had come when the 
peace of the nation must be established under his rule, or the 
nation itself must be given over to the power of its enemies. 
He would have gathered and protected them with the most 
affectionate care, Matt, xxiii. 37 ; Ps. lxxxi. 13 — 16, but they 
would not be gathered. The fault was theirs. The Saviour 
had exhibited to them all the appointed proofs of his Messiah- 
ship. The manner of his entry into the city at that time was 
a prophetical sign of his royal character, and claim to their 
allegiance. Had it been possible for them to receive him with 
the obedience of faith, and had they done so, "he would have 
soon subdued their enemies, and turned his hand against their 
adversaries. The haters of the Lord should have submitted 
themselves to him, but their time should have endured for 
ever." Ps. lxxxi. 14, 15. 

Matt. xxi. 10, 11. "And when he was come into Jerusalem 
all the city [the whole city] was moved [agitated, put in com- 
motion,] saying, Who is this ? And the multitude said, This is 
Jesus, the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee." 

Matthew alone notices the impressiveness of the popular 
demonstration and display upon the masses of the city, thronged 
as it was at that time. Probably this minuteness was suggested 
by the fact that it was the fulfilment of the important prophecy 
he had quoted. Never before had our Lord entered the city 
in that manner, and never did he so enter it again. Yet it is 
noticeable, that the multitudes who thus honoured him, ascribed 
to him no higher character than that of a prophet from a 
despised city. Unwittingly, therefore, they fulfilled the pro- 
phecy, John xii. 16, not even understanding the hosannas 
they offered to him as the Son of David; thus ignorantly 
acknowledging him as their King, whom their rulers, five days 
afterwards, ignorantly but wickedly rejected and slew. Acts 
ii. 23; iii. IT. 

Matt. xxi. 12, 13. "And Jesus went into the temple of God 
and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and 
overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of 
them that sold doves ; and he said to them, It is written, My 
house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye have made it 
a den of thieves." 

Some harmonists refer this transaction to the next day, 
(Monday, according to our reckoning,) in order to reconcile 
Matthew with Mark. Others suppose, that it was repeated on 
the next day, as Mark relates, with this additional restraint, 
that he would not suffer any one to carry a vessel through the 
temple. Mark xi. 16. According to this hypothesis, the Lord 



244 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

drove out of the temple the money-changers thrice, viz. once 
before he entered upon his public ministry, while John was 
still baptizing, John ii. 13 — 17, and twice just before the close 
of it. 

Without -entering into a formal discussion of the question, 
the writer adopts this view of the matter, as it appears to be 
both reasonable and natural. Another question has been made, 
whether the action was miraculous or simply natural. Upon 
this, we remark, that the transaction was in harmony with the 
other acts of our Lord on that occasion. He had, in the ful- 
filment of prophecy, Zech. ix. 9, temporarily assumed his 
character of King of Zion. Entering the city as her King, in 
the manner foretold, he proceeded to the temple and entered it 
also in that character. This is evident from the hosannas 
which he there received in despite of the remonstrances of the 
priests and scribes, verse 15. All felt his presence and the 
mysterious power of his will. His works in the temple on that 
occasion, were {Oaofiaaea) wonderful — wonderful, as we suppose, 
in comparison with any he had exhibited on other occasions, 
verse 15. For a little space, he acted as King, though (jifjauz) 
meekly or mildly, in comparison with the powers he will exert 
when he shall sit on the throne of his glory. Matt. xxv. 31, 32. 
It was in keeping with the occasion, and indeed it was required 
by the prophecy he was fulfilling, that he should do so. This 
view is confirmed by the next verse. 

Matt. xxr. 13. "And he said to them, It is written, My 
house shall be called the house of prayer, but ye have made it 
a den of thieves." Mark xi. 17 ; Luke xix. 46. 

He claims the temple as his own — his house : his, by Divine 
right, as King of Zion. See Matt. xii. 6. In that character 
and by that right, he expelled, not by a scourge of cords, John 
ii. 15, but by force of his will, those who polluted it. These 
words must have been understood by those who heard them as 
an assumption of personal authority over the temple, and of 
the right to overrule the authority of the priests. Therefore 
it was, that on the next day the priests and the elders made a 
formal demand of his authority, and whence he derived it, 
verse 23, seeing the guardianship and the use of the temple 
was by the law and the constitution of their commonwealth 
especially committed to them. It is natural to suppose that 
this demand was made officially, and after a formal consulta- 
tion; which the exciting events of the preceding day did not 
allow them to hold. The reader will observe also, that their 
demand did not turn upon his miracles of healing, verse 14, or 
upon his teaching, see Matt. xxii. 16, for these they did not 



THE HOMAGE OF THE CHILDREN. . 245 

regard as an invasion of their authority, but upon his other 
acts on that occasion. 

Matt. xxr. 15, 16. "And when the chief priests and the 
scribes saw the wonderful things [Oau/iaaea, the wonders] he 
did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna 
to the Son of David, they were sore displeased [indignant,] 
and said to him, Hearest thou what these say?" 

This question of the priests and scribes shows the chief cause 
of their indignation. They understood the import of the accla- 
mation, see notes on verse 9, and regarded his acquiescence, as 
an assumption of the character the children ascribed to him. 
They were justified in doing so, by the acts of authority he had 
previously performed. We have no reason to suppose that the 
healing of the lame and the blind especially moved them, as the 
day was not the Sabbath. Luke xiii. 14. 

Matt. xxi. 16. "And Jesus said to them, Yea," [I hear 
them; and] "have ye never read, Out of the mouth of babes 
and sucklings, thou hast perfected praise?" 

By this quotation, Ps. viii. 2, our Lord tacitly alludes to his 
own majesty as Son of Man: for the words of David were 
addressed to himself as Jehovah Lord. " Jehovah, our 
(Adon) Lord, out of [or from] the mouth of babes thou hast 
perfected praise." Well, therefore, might he approve and 
appropriate to himself as Son of David the hosannas so offensive 
to the priests and Scribes; for to him alone were they due. 
See notes on Matt. ix. 4. It is plain, however, that the Jews 
had no conception of the mysterious union of the Divine and 
human natures in the person of Messiah, or the Son of Man in 
the Son of David ; for on the same day, and perhaps in the 
temple on the same occasion, his discourse concerning himself 
as the Son of Man, John xii. 23 — 34, prompted the people to 
inquire, "Who is this Son of Man?" verse 34. "The Christ," 
said they, "abideth for ever." This we have heard out of the 
law: but thou sayest, "The Son of Man must be lifted up." 
The seemingly opposite destinies of these two persons, as 
declared by the law and by himself, proved to the apprehen- 
sion of the people that they could not be the same person. 
This inquiry of the people was not made in a sceptical spirit, 
for they regarded him as a prophet, and were very attentive to 
hear him. Luke xix. 48; Mark xi. 18; Matt. xxi. 46. That 
the Son of Man was not an ordinary man was apparent from 
the whole tenor of our Lord's discourse ; especially from John 
xii. 23, the glory claimed for him, attested as the claim was, 
by a miraculous voice, verses 28, 29. This they must have 
understood: but who could he be? They had not heard of 
him as they had of the Christ, out of the law. It is significant 



246 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

that our Lord did not answer the inquiry. It proves that 
there was a mystery in the matter, which it did not belong to 
his mission to explain. Comp. verses 34 and 35 of John xii. 

The view the writer takes of the question will be apparent to 
those who have considered the preceding notes. As the Adon 
or Lord of the world, he became incarnate in the line of David. 
It was this purpose which excited the amazement of David. 
See notes on Matt. ix. 4; Matt. xvi. 13, 14, 16. As the seed 
of David, he was also King of Zion. On the ground of this 
distinction, we account for the discriminative words of Ps. ii. 6 : 
"Yet have I set my King," that is, my King of the whole 
earth, "upon Zion, the mountain of my holiness." He had 
now come in fulfilment of prophecy, Zech. ix. 9, meekly, yet 
authoritatively, to take possession of his kingdom and of his 
temple for a brief space, and then voluntarily to offer up his 
body as a ransom for the world, of which, as the Son of Man, 
he was the Lord. Considering his foreseen rejection as Mes- 
siah, this was the great end of his incarnation and mission; 
and that was the mystery which the question of the people 
touched upon. Our Lord's answer was in effect: "Use well 
the light you have, while you have it, without inquiring into 
matters which do not especially concern you at this time." 
John xii. 35, 36. 

Matt. xxi. IT. "And he left them, and went out of the 
city into [to] Bethany, and lodged there." 

According to the harmonists, our Lord's triumphal entry 
into Jerusalem, and the transactions in the temple which we 
have considered, occurred on Sunday, or five days before the 
passover. It does not appear that he lodged in the city any 
night afterwards. He went either to Bethany, Mark xi. 12, or 
to the Mount of Olives, Luke xxi. 37, 38 ; Matt. xxvi. 30 ; 
Mark xiv. 26 ; Luke xxii. 39, or to the garden of Gethsemane, 
Matt. xxvi. 36, or to some other place out of the city, Mark 
xi. 19. Are we to regard this conduct as a precaution, designed 
to guard by natural means against his apprehension before the 
appointed time, see John x. 39, and notes on Matt. ii. 12, 13, 
or a part of the arrangement by which the punctual fulfilment 
of the prophecies was to be accomplished, see John xviii. 2; 
Acts i. 16, or both? However we may resolve these questions, 
it is evident, the rulers thought it a matter of much difficulty to 
apprehend him, requiring even subtilty on their part, Matt, 
xxvi. 4; Mark xiv. 1; John xi. 57, and so did Judas. Luke 
xxii. 6; Matt. xxvi. 15. Hence they eagerly embraced the 
offer of the traitor. Luke xxii. 5. It is probable, too, they 
thought night the only time when the apprehension of him 
could be made without danger of a rescue by the people. See 



THE WITHERING OF THE FIG-TREE.. 247 

Matt, xxi 46 ; Luke xix. 48. But they knew neither the mys- 
tery of Providence, nor the mystery of his person. No hand 
could apprehend him before the appointed hour had come. 
John vii. 30 ; viii. 20 ; xiii. 1 ; Luke xxii. 53. Then he volun- 
tarily surrendered himself. John xviii. 4 — 8. The manner of 
his apprehension, therefore, was an unnecessary indignity, and 
so the Saviour himself spoke of it, as the Evangelists are care- 
ful to notice. Matt. xxvi. 55 ; Mark xiv. 49 ; Luke xxii. 53. 
It is sufficient to add, that our Lord's daily departure at 
evening from the city, gave occasion to the priests and rulers 
to display their character ; and especially to Judas, who 
entered into a formal compact with them on the Wednesday 
following, to perform his part in the final scene. 

Matt. xxi. 18—20; Mark xi. 12—14, 20, 21. The wither- 
ing of the barren fig-tree. 

The miracle recorded in these verses was witnessed only by 
our Lord's disciples. Mark xi. 14. It was wrought apparently 
for the purpose of conveying to them the instruction contained 
in the next two verses, verses 21, 22. If we regard the tree 
as a symbol of the nation, and the malediction as indicative of 
the nation's doom, until the end of this dispensation, the time 
of the act may be significant. Our Lord had entered Jerusa- 
lem, the day before, as her King, but he was not received in 
that character, except by the children. The multitudes hailed 
him only as the prophet of Nazareth, while the rulers plotted 
against his life. John xii. 36. With that day, therefore, the 
day of their national visitation ended, and before he entered 
the city again, he portrayed in the fig-tree the nation's doom. 
The parable of the fig-tree, in Luke xiii. 6 — 10, at least favours 
the symbolical interpretation of this miracle, although we can- 
not, as before intimated, find ground for such an interpretation 
in the context. See Matt. xxi. 42, 43. Nor is it probable 
the disciples, at that time, saw more in the miracle than an 
exhibition of power which the Saviour taught them they would 
be able to exercise through faith in him ; and thus considered, 
we understand in the literal sense the following verse: 

Matt. xxi. 21. "Verily, I say unto you, If ye have faith, 
and doubt not, ye shall not only do this, which is done to the 
fig-tree, but also if ye shall say to this mountain, Be thou 
removed, and be thou cast into the sea, it shall be done." See 
Mark xi. 22, 23. 

This is teaching by example; a method which excludes 
hyperbole. Yet, as before intimated, the promise has respect 
to the glorified elect in the world to come. See notes on Matt, 
xiv. 30, 31; John xiv. 12. If, indeed, we assume that our 
Lord, in this promise, had respect to his believing people in 



248 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

this world, then it must be confessed it has never been realized, 
even in the holiest of men, 1 Cor. xiii. 2, and we feel con- 
strained by the fact, to divest it of its proper literal meaning. 
What our Lord added to these words, however, may be intended 
to describe the power of faith in this life. 

Matt. xxi. 28. "And all things whatsoever ye shall ask in 
prayer, believing, ye shall receive." 

Here prayer is added to faith, as a means to the end. On a 
former occasion, Matt. xvii. 21, see notes, he prescribed fasting 
as well as prayer, but in that case, with reference to their exer- 
cise of miraculous powers in this life. But in this verse, the 
Saviour seems to speak only of believing prayer; and thus 
understood, there is no reason why we should confine the 
promise to the apostles, any more than we should the injunction 
to forgive, which Mark adds, xi. 25. The promise of our Lord, 
thus interpreted, extends to the whole futurity of the believer's 
being — to his state of humility and suffering in this life, and to 
his state of glory in the ages to come. We may add, the 
largeness of our Lord's conceptions, including, as they ever 
did, his whole work, favours this interpretation. All his pro- 
mises to his elect took hold of unfathomable mysteries. 

Matt. xxi. 23 — xxv. 46. 

The matters recorded by this Evangelist, beginning at this 
place, and ending with chapter xxiii., are commonly supposed 
to have occurred on (Tuesday) the third day before the pass- 
over. Our Lord's prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, 
delivered privately to four of his disciples, Peter, James, John, 
and Andrew, Mark xiii. 3, and the parables he subjoined to it, 
Matt. xxiv. and xxv., are assigned to the same day. On this 
day, (according to some Harmonists, but according to others on 
the day following — Wednesday) the priests, Scribes, and elders 
of the people were formally convened at the palace of the 
chief -priest, Matt. xxvi. 3, to devise means for the apprehension 
of the Lord Jesus, when Judas sought admission to the assem- 
bly, and entered into a formal compact with them. Matt. xxvi. 
14 — 16. On the day preceding, (Monday) the Lord had 
expelled the traders and money-changers from the temple, and, 
as we may infer, from Mark xi. 18, taught the people, but what 
he taught them, does not appear. Mark xi. 15 — 19. The day 
before, (Sunday) he had entered the temple amid the shoutings 
of the people, and having taken a survey of it, without teach- 
ing, or, according to Mark, performing any other act, he retired 
to Bethany with the twelve. John, xii. 20 — 36, however, 
records an impassioned discourse to the people on that day, 
which, if we may consider it in connection with his triumphal 
entry, shows how he was affected by the hosannas which had 



CHRIST IS QUESTIONED BY THE PRIESTS. 249 

been offered him. But not to dwell on these circumstantial 
notices, we remark that the reader will not appreciate the sub- 
limity of this portion of the Gospel, without a profound sense 
of the majesty of our Lord's person, and the solemnity of the 
crisis the nation had reached. It was the last day of our Lord's 
public ministry. Several hours before the close of it, and we 
doubt not, before the hour of evening prayer, he took his final 
leave of the temple, declaring it left desolate. The death of 
John the Baptist, we have seen, was an epoch in the nation's 
history. It marked their near approximation to the verge of 
destruction, and their certain downfall. See notes on Matt. xiv. 
6 — 9. Now the crisis had come. In an important sense, it 
was the nation's day of judgment. For although the Lord did 
not enter the temple on that day officially to judge the nation, 
yet he entered it to pronounce words of reprobation and pun- 
ishment, by commandment of the Father, which, in the course 
of Divine Providence, were soon to be put in execution, with 
fearful and prolonged effect. Luke xxi. 22. Accordingly, the 
language he employed was positive, direct, and judicially 
denunciatory. 

We must not regard the words he uttered as the language of 
strife or invective, nor his responses to his assailants as' an 
exhibition of dialectic skill. This would be a low view, 
infinitely beneath the dignity and majesty of his character, and 
quite at variance with the solemn function he was performing. 
He was the Son of Man, and the rightful Lord of the world. 
He was the Christ, and in that relation the king of Israel. 
He was the Minister of God the Father, performing, by Divine 
command, the last public, official act of his ministry. John 
xii. 49, 50. A tone Of authority, power, and majesty, pervades 
all his sayings on that day, and his words did but convey to 
them God's reasons for the fearful calamities he was about to 
send upon the nation. We return now to the text. 

Matt. xxi. 23. " And when he was come into the temple, the 
chief priest and the elders of the people came unto him as he 
was teaching, and said, By what authority doest thou these 
things, and who gave thee this authority?" 

Our Lord left Bethany {npcocaq) early in the morning, verse 
18. The impression his preaching had made on the people was 
very deep. Luke xix. 48. In the expressive language of Luke 
(i^sxpsparo) they hung upon him, and assembled very early 
(copdpe^e, Luke xxi. 38,) to hear him. We may reasonably 
suppose he had been engaged a considerable time in teaching, 
before the dignitaries of the nation appeared at the temple, 
with their demand, which seems to have been officially made. 
The motive for making it may have been, in part, at least, to 
32 



•250 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

counteract his influence with the people, which they greatly- 
feared, xxvi. 5 ; John xii. 19 — and if so, they would be likely 
to make it with a stately show of their own authority, to impress 
the people,, and perhaps also with the vain conceit of producing 
awe in the mind of Jesus. However this, may be, the demand 
interrupted his discourse to the people, and drew their attention 
to his discourse with the priests and elders which followed. 
It was a new step upon the part of the rulers, and calculated 
t to create the apprehension that it would be followed by violence. 
According to Mark's account, which doubtless is accurate, on 
this occasion also our Lord drove out of the temple the traders 
and money-changers. There is nothing incredible in the sup- 
position that the mercenary people he had cast out the day 
before, according to Matthew's account, had returned, or that 
others had taken their place ; and this is the view we take of 
the matter. See notes on verse 12. This demand of the 
priests, therefore, referred rather to this act of authority, than 
to his assumption of the office of a teacher, and thus understood, 
it may be paraphrased thus: — "By what authority dost thou 
forbid and prevent that which we, the lawful guardians of this 
holy place, have seen proper to permit ; and who gave thee 
authority to interfere with, and overrule our regulations?" 

The demand for his authority was a demand for evidence of 
his authority. It implied, that the miraculous works which he 
had performed before them in the temple, verse 14, and during 
the whole of his public ministry, of which it must be supposed 
they had personal knowledge, were not sufficient evidence to 
satisfy their minds. Therefore, had the Saviour replied to the 
demand — "My works show my authority. They testify of me; 
who I am, and whence I came. They are such as no man ever 
did," — this would have been but repeating what he had often 
told them before, and what they had rejected as sufficient proof 
of his Divine mission. They regarded them, or affected to 
regard them, in another light. Hence, our Lord replied by 
asking them another question. 

Matt. xxi. 24. " And Jesus answered and said unto them : 
I also will ask you one thing, which if ye will tell me, I in 
like wise will tell you by what authority I do these things." 

As if he had said: Seeing you judge, that my works, per- 
formed in your presence, do not prove my authority to do these 
things, nor show whence I derive it, I also will ask you one 
thing, your answer to which will prove, whether you can be 
convinced of my authority, by any evidence which God has 
seen proper to give you upon that question : for other or greater 
evidence you cannot have. 



Christ's response to the priests. 251 

Matt. xxi. 25. "The baptism of John: whence was it? 
From heaven or from men ?" 

The reader must remember that the whole evidence which 
God saw proper to give the Jews of the Divine mission of the 
Lord Jesus, was comprised in the ministry or baptism of John, 
and his own ministry, especially his miraculous works. This 
has been sufficiently shown in the foregoing notes. Especially 
did our Lord rely upon his works, placing them not only above 
the testimony of John, but his own words. John v. 30 — 37 ; 
xv. 24. No other signs from heaven of his authority were con- 
sistent with the Divine plan. Matt. xvi. 1 — 4, and see notes on 
Matt. xii. 48. It is obvious, therefore, that if the questioners 
were not convinced by the miracles of the Lord, and their ques- 
tion, as we have said, assumes that they were not, the only 
remaining source of proof was the ministry or baptism of 
John. This, though inferior evidence to miracles, was in its 
nature and power a sufficient attestation of the Divine mission 
of Jesus. See notes on Matt. iii. 1, 2; xi. 3. 

Some commentators suppose that the turn which our Lord 
gave to the question of the priests and elders was designed to 
put them in a strait between their malice and their fears — an 
effect which it had. But the motive of the Saviour, as we con- 
ceive, lay deeper. His question was pertinent to their ques- 
tion — their question being considered with reference to the only 
evidence upon which it could possibly be resolved. It was de- 
signed to prove out of their own mouth that neither the testi- 
mony of John, nor his own wonderful works could convince 
them ; and without these, his own verbal declaration of his 
authority would be, even in his own view, of. no avail. John 
v. 31; xiv. 11; xv. 24. 

Matt. xxi. 25, 26. "And they reasoned with themselves, 
saying, If w T e shall say, From heaven, he will say, Why did ye 
not then believe him ? But if we shall say, From men, we 
fear the people ; for all hold John as a prophet." 

Some, perhaps most, readers take it for granted, the Saviour 
would have replied as the priests and elders surmised he would, 
if they had answered his question truly. By such a reply they 
would no doubt have publicly convicted themselves of enormous 
guilt, but it is by no means certain that his answer to them 
would have been such as they imagined. Certainly he would 
have fulfilled his promise, and shown them his authority, and 
perhaps have made it convincing to them by his power over 
their hearts. Had they overcome their fears, and answered his 
question, as they desired to do, falsely :, though they would not 
have fulfilled the condition upon which his promise depended, 
yet he might have told them, in reply, that no further evidence 



252 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

could be given them of his authority, but that which was fur- 
nished by the baptism and ministry of John and his own works, 
both of which they had rejected. See Matt. xvi. 1 — 4, and 
notes. That they would have answered the question falsely, 
had they not been restrained by their fears, is evident, not only 
from their treatment of John, but from the form of our Lord's 
reply. 

Matt. xxi. 27. " And they answered Jesus and said [obx 
ocdajmsv,'] We cannot tell," [rather, "We do not know."" 

According to this answer, the baptism of John might have 
been of Divine origin, for aught they knew to the contrary. 
Their rejection of him, therefore, was not only extremely rash, 
considering the effect of his ministry upon the minds of the 
people, but guilty, in not giving due heed to the evidence they 
had upon a matter of so great moment. If we assume, how- 
ever, that their answer was insincere — that they really did 
believe that John's baptism was without a heavenly warrant, it 
would prove that the evidence of John's authority was inef- 
fectual to produce conviction in their minds, as the miracles of 
the Lord Jesus were; and also, that their unbelief and obduracy 
were insurmountable by the combined force of all the evidence 
God had seen proper to give them. 

Matt. xxi. 27. "And he said unto them, Neither tell* I 
you by what authority I do these things." 

Our Lord knew their thoughts and answered them according 
to their intent, and not according to their words. He assumed, 
however, the Divine authority of John's mission, as well as his 
own ; which in effect he connected together as one in purpose 
and intent, so far as they respected the nation, by his question. 
The admission or denial of John's authority was in effect the 
admission or denial of his own, John v. 33, 36, and a doubt 
concerning either, was a doubt which could not be removed by 
additional evidence: Hence the appositeness of the reply. 

Matt. xxi. 28 — 31. Having thus disposed of the question 
proposed to him by the chief-priests and elders, our Lord put 
to them an hypothetical case taken from common life, upon 
which he framed another question in such terms, that it could 
receive only one answer. "But what think ye?" What would 
be your opinion in this case? "A man had two sons, and going 
to the first, he said, Son, go to work to-day in my vineyard. 
He answered and said, I will not ; but afterwards he repented, 
and went. Then going to the second, he said [likewise] the 
same. And he answered and said, I go, sir, but went not. 
Which of the two did the will of the father?" 

* An old commentator notes on this verse : o ; jk tiny, owe oUu,, ukk\ ou ktyce — 



THE NATION REJECT HIM. 253 

This case was put with tacit reference to the Jewish people, 
considered under two divisions — the rulers and the ruled — the 
priests, Pharisees, lawyers, Luke vii. 29, 30, and the learned 
on the one hand, and the common people, including the lowest 
and most despised classes of them, on the other. John vii. 
45 — 49. The former were, by outward profession, the servants 
of God, and the acknowledged ministers of his religion — the 
teachers and guides of all classes of the common people. Matt. 
xxiii. 2, 3. Upon all questions of religious worship and duty, 
their decisions were authoritative and decisive. The appearance 
and public ministry of John the Baptist, were extraordinary 
and startling events. They were so regarded by all. He 
summoned the nation to a new baptism, which was a religious 
rite, well known to them. But by what authority ? That was 
the great question. The priests, rulers, and teachers of the 
people claimed the right to decide it as they did other questions 
connected with religion ; and the masses of the people, it is 
probable, would have easily acquiesced in their decision, had 
not John's authority been authenticated by the most ample and 
convincing proofs. See notes on Matt. iii. 1. The rulers did 
decide the question, but the people almost universally, Luke 
iii. 21; Matt. iii. 5, 6, rejected unhesitatingly and strongly 
their decision, and as a proof of their sincerity, sought him and 
submitted to his baptism. 

But the contrast which our Lord intended to make was not 
between the rulers and the masses of the people generally, but 
between the rulers and those whom they regarded as the lowest 
and vilest of the common people, who led openly irreligious 
and immoral lives; thereby showing not only no profession of 
service, but that they had no sense of religious obligation. 
Accordingly, upon receiving the answer of priests and elders, 
he said, verse 31, " I say unto you, the publicans and the har- 
lots go into the kingdom of God before you." 

As if he had said, "You priests and elders who profess to be 
the servants of God, and the guardians of the temple of God, 
promise well indeed, but you perform not, and however highly 
you think of yourselves, are farther from the kingdom of God 
than the publicans and harlots whom you despise." 

Matt. xxi. 32. "For" when "John came unto you in the 
way of righteousness," [that is, in the divinely-appointed way 
of bringing in everlasting righteousness] "ye believed him 
not," [on the contrary, ye rejected all the proofs which God 
gave you of his Divine mission, although they convinced every 
one but you, for] "even the publicans and harlots believed 
him; but ye, when ye had seen," [and had had ample oppor- 
tunity to consider those proofs, notwithstanding your large 



254 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

professions of obedience,] " repented not, that ye might believe 
in him." Therefore, "publicans and harlots go into the king- 
dom of God before you." 

On this occasion, our Lord referred for the last time, so far 
as we know, to the ministry of John the Baptist; and the 
reader will observe he does so in connection with his own. As 
on a former occasion, see Matt. xi. 10 — 14 and notes, so now, 
he bears the strongest testimony to John's authority. Then, 
indeed, John, though imprisoned, was in the midst of them. It 
was not too late then for the nation to receive. him. But now he 
speaks of John's ministry as a bygone matter, as an opportunity 
neglected and gone beyond recall. The rejection of John, we 
have seen, was in effect the rejection of the Lord himself, see 
notes on Matt. xiv. 10, and so he treated it, as appears by the 
next parable, verses 33 — 39. All questions, therefore, touch- 
ing his authority or the authority of John came too late. No 
answer could have served any interest which they had at stake. 
By employing the words we are considering, our Lord assumed 
that the day of national visitation was over, and the hope of 
Israel, as a nation, gone for that time. The only hope of sal- 
vation that remained was individual and personal, which might 
be entertained by some on better grounds than by others. But 
of all classes, the priests and the rulers had the least reason to 
expect the Divine favour, less even than publicans and harlots. 
In this truth, thus plainly declared, not in anger or invective, 
but as the Divine estimation, John xii. 48, 49, of their char- 
acter and condition, the severity of the comparison consisted. 

Having told the dignitaries of the nation, in the plainest lan- 
guage, their true character and condition in the sight of God, 
our Lord passes immediately to the nation itself. The transi- 
tion was easy and natural. In all their generations, from the 
commencement of their covenant-relations as the elect people 
of God, the governing powers of the nation had been corrupt 
and rebellious. It was only through the mercy and forbear- 
ance of God that it had been reserved to that generation to fill 
up the measure of their national sins. See Matt, xxiii. 30 — 32. 
With equal plainness, therefore, our Lord proceeds to pronounce 
the nation's punishment, which, so far as declared on this occa- 
sion, consisted chiefly in the deprivation of the privileges con- 
tained in the covenant of the kingdom, verse 43. This is the 
drift or general import of the parable of the vineyard, verses 
33 — 41. The loss, of necessity, fell upon the people com- 
posing the nation, and it came upon them mediately, or instru- 
mentally, through their rulers, yet not without individual 
participation in the national sins. The people, in all their 
generations, had concurred in, or assented to, the sins of their 



THE PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD, 255 

rulers, and oftentimes instigated them; although, in the matter 
of John the Baptist's ministry, their guilt did not consist in 
concurring with their rulers, but in their not receiving him 
with the obedience of faith. See notes on Matt. xi. 14. This 
lack of faith was a sinful defect, and the cause of their similar 
treatment of the Lord himself. We have seen that, from the 
death of John the Baptist, our Lord changed his public min- 
istry from the nation, in its public capacity, to the people, in 
their individual and personal relations. He offered himself, 
thenceforth, as Son of Man and Saviour to all who would 
receive him; and to enforce his appeals, he wrought new 
miracles more impressive upon the popular mind than any he 
had previously wrought. They were even persuaded that he 
was "that prophet that should come into the world." John 
vi. 14; see the notes on Matt. xiv. 10, 14; xv. 30; xvi. 4. 
From that time especially, if not exclusively, they were put 
upon their individual personal responsibilities. Every one 
who did not receive him with the obedience of the heart, was 
guilty of rejecting him, and justly incurred the penalty of the 
sin. To this latter portion of our Lord's ministry, commencing 
at the death of John, we suppose the parable of the marriage, 
in the next chapter, especially applies, although not without 
some allusion to the previous portion of it. That parable 
represents the people, one and all, as making light of it, pre- 
ferring their ordinary occupations and the ephemeral concerns 
of this life to the glory of the kingdom he offered them. Matt. 
xxiii. 5. The three parables are necessary to complete the 
subject of our Lord's discourse. Taken together, they cover 
the whole ground of condemnation, whether we consider the 
people in their national capacity, and as the children of the 
covenant — as rulers or subjects, or as individuals responsible 
for their personal sins. They are the last our Lord publicly 
delivered, and explain the reasons of the dreadful judgments 
which were soon to be sent upon them. These observations 
premised, we proceed with the exposition. 

Matt. xxi. 33 — 41. The parable of the vineyard. 

This parable may remind the reader of Isaiah v. 1 — 8, from 
which the imagery of it was, perhaps, designedly borrowed. 
It is an allegory of God's dealings with Israel, from the time 
he entered into covenant with them, at Horeb, Exod. xix. 1 — 5, 
and of their conduct, as the people of the covenant, to the close 
of our Lord's ministry. But the chief or finishing stroke of 
the representation is designed to set forth the end of his own 
mission and the most atrocious and heaven-daring of the nation's 
sins. It does not come within the purpose of these notes to 
explain minutely the material circumstances of the parable, or 



256 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

to trace throughout the resemblance between the allegory and 
the historical events it compendiously represents. The moral 
or application of the parable is too obvious to be mistaken. 
The chief priests and Pharisees plainly perceived it. They 
could not fail to do so after our Lord had declared its import. 

In general, it may be remarked that, by the mission of ser- 
vants, verse 34, we are to understand the raising up and 
sending of prophets to the people, which may be supposed to 
commence with Samuel, see Acts iii. 24, in the days of Eli, 
about 1130 B. c, from whose days, till the return from the 
Captivity at Babylon, about 536 B. c, the succession of pro- 
phets was almost, if not quite, uninterrupted.* 

The book of Esther closes the canon of the Old Testament 
Scriptures. By whom it was written we do not know; but 
undoubtedly by an inspired person. After the close of the 
canon we have not so sure means of tracing the succession of 
heaven-sent messengers, but we have no reason to suppose that 
God, at any time, left the people without prophets, or wise men, 
or scribes, who were faithful witnesses of his truth, see Matt, 
xxiii. 34, during the succeeding interval which was terminated 
by the appearance of John. Such witnesses, whatever their 
office or character, would be aptly represented by the servants 
of the parable. 

Matt. xxi. 37. "But last of all he sent his son, saying 
[certainly] They will reverence my son." 

It cannot be necessary to remark that the son represents our 
blessed Lord himself. And when we consider the majesty of 

* The reader may satisfy himself of the correctness of this remark by refer- 
ring to the following passages, according to Townsend's chronological arrange- 
ment of the Old Testament: 1 Sam. xxviii. 6, 15; xxii. 5; 1 Chron. xxix. 29 
2 Chron. xxix. 25; 2 Sam. xxiv. 11—14; 1 Chron. xxi. 9—13; 2 Sam. vii. 2 
1 Kings i. ; 1 Chron. ix. 29 ; xvii. 1 ; 2 Chron. xxix. 25, 29 ; 1 Kings iv. 5 
xi. 29; 1 Chron. ix. 29; 2 Kings xiv. 2—4; 1 Kings xiii. 1, 11—18, 10—22 
26—32; 2 Chron. ix. 29; xii. 15; xiii. 22 ; 2 Kings xii. 22; 2 Chron. xi. 2 
xii. 5, 7, 15 ; xv. 1 — 8 ; xvi. 7 ; 1 Kings xvi. 1, 7 — 12 ; 2 Chron. xix. 2 ; xx. 34 

1 Kings xvii. 1; 2 Kings i. 3 ; 2 Chron. xxi. 12 — 15; 1 Kings xiv. 25: xviii 
4, 13, 19—40; xix. 16, 19—22; xvi. 33; xx. 13—22, 28, 35, 41; xxii. 8 

2 Chron. xviii. 7; 2 Kings ii. 3, 5, 7, 9—15, 16; xiii. 14—25; iv. 1, 38 
ix. 1—4 ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 20—22 ; xxv. 7, 15 ; Amos i. 1 : vii. 9—11 : Hos. i. 1 
2 Kings xviii. 10 ; Isa. i. 1 ; vi. 1 ; vii. 1 ; xiv. 28 ; xx. 1 ; xxxv. 1 ; 2 Kings 
xix. 2; 2 Chron. xxvi. 22, 5; xxviii. 9; Mic. i. 1; Jer. xxvi. 18; 2 Kings 
xxi. 10; Jer. i. 2, 3 ; iii. 6; xxi. 1; xxii. 11, 24, 28; xxv. 1, 3; xxvi. 1 
xxvii. 20 ; xliii.; 2 Chron. xxxv. 25 ; xxxvi. 21 ; Zeph. i. 1 : 2 Kings xxii. 3, 14 
2 Chron. xxxiv. 22 ; Jer. xxvi. 20—33 ; Ezek. i. 1, 2 ; xl. 1 ; Dan. i. 1—21 
vi. 28; ix. 1; x. 1 ; Hagg. i. 1, 15; ii. 1, 10, 19, 20; Zech. i. 1, 7 ; vii. 1 
Ezrav. 1; vi. 14; Neh. viii. 2, 9; xii. 26, 36; Ezra vii. 1, 7, 8; Neh. i. 1 
ii. 1 ; v. 14, xiii. 6; viii. 2 — 9; vi. 7, 14. Several of the foregoing references 
have been repeated on account of the connection they have with others. These 
references are sufficient to put the reader on the track of inquiry ; and they 
will throw light upon Matt, xxiii. 34, 35. 



THE PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD. 257 

his person as the Son of Man, the Adam of the everlasting 
covenant — his Divine wisdom and his wonderful works — his 
infinite superiority to the greatest of the prophets, Matt. iii. 11 ; 
xi. 11, there would be great reason to anticipate his favourable 
reception. The result of our Lord's ministry among the Jews 
proves beyond all doubt the incurable depravity of the human 
heart, except by the creative energies of the Holy Spirit, and 
this is vividly represented by the reasoning ascribed to the 
husbandmen in the parable. Reverence they had none, and 
the householder erred in calculating upon it. In this point the 
analogy of the parable fails. The issue of our Lord's mission 
was not only certainly foreknown, but predetermined in the 
Divine counsels. Acts ii. 23; xv. 18. Our Lord, therefore, 
designed merely to intimate the reasonableness of such expecta- 
tions according to man's judgment — the guilt of the husbandmen 
in disappointing them — and the equity of the Divine procedure 
even when considered according to the low standard of earthly 
analogies. It was with this view of the circumstance, as we 
conceive, the Evangelist records the response of the people, 
verse 41.* 

Matt. xxi. 39. " And they caught him, and cast him out 
of the vineyard, and slew him." See Luke xx. 15; Mark 
xii. 8. 

We incline to believe our Lord, in these words, had especial 
allusion to his approaching sufferings without the city. Heb. 
xiii. 12. There was a typical exigency for his suffering without 
the gate, which he might well represent in this circumstance of 
the parable. Mark, it is true, differs from the other Evangelists 
in representing the husbandmen as first killing the son, and 
then casting him out of the vineyard: and perhaps we should 

* There appears to be a discrepancy between the Evangelists in this par- 
ticular. Matthew ascribes the answer in verse 41 to the people ; Mark and 
Luke ascribe it to our Lord himself. We suppose both records are correct. 
Both answers may have been given — one by some of the bystanders, as Mat- 
thew relates, and the other by our Lord, as Mark and Luke relate, or our 
Lord may have adopted the answer of the bystanders, incorporating it, as he 
proceeded, into his own discourse. However this may be, the discrepancy 
proves that the stress of the passage does not lie on this circumstance. As 
uttered by our Lord, the words are prophetical. As used by the people, 
they express merely the reasonableness of such punishment. It was more 
important to Matthew's purpose to record the popular judgment upon the case 
represented, than the prophecy, because the prophecy involved in the words, 
as used by our Lord, is supplied by another declaration in the 43d and 44th 
verses, and also by the parable of the marriage, which he proceeds immediately 
to record. Matt. xxii. 7. Whereas the other Evangelists omit the parable of 
the marriage, as well as the response of the bystanders, and our Lord's other 
declaration, recorded by Matthew in the 43d verse, substituting for all these 
the Saviour's declaration of the punishment the Lord of the vineyard would 
inflict upon the husbandmen. 



258 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

account for this discrepancy, as we did for that just noticed, by 
supposing that the stress of the parable does not, in any degree, 
lie upon this circumstance. We prefer, however, another 
explanation. Mark wrote his Gospel for the use of Gentile 
churches. It was not important to his purpose, nor was it his 
intention, as we suppose, to affirm the order of the events, or do 
more than specify the fact itself, which he does in substantial 
consistency with the record of Matthew. Either statement 
shows a contempt of the rights of the son, and equal indignity 
to his person, which was all that Mark intended to show. But 
Matthew wrote his Gospel especially for the Hebrew Christians, 
who were more or less familiar with the typical signification of 
their ritual. On this assumption Paul reasons, in the passage 
just before cited from Heb. xiii. 11, 12. It was more important, 
therefore, for such readers to record with orderly exactness 
this part of the parable, knowing the use that would be made of 
it as an argument with that people. Hence we conclude that, 
while neither Evangelist contradicts the other, the especial 
views with which they wrote, satisfactorily account for the 
difference between them in this as well as many other par- 
ticulars. 

The reader will observe, that the crime of ejecting and killing 
the Son, is ascribed wholly to (the Jews) the husbandmen. In 
the Divine regard, they were the authors of it, though the 
Romans acted concurrently with the Jewish rulers, and so the 
apostle Peter charged it upon them. Acts ii. 23; iii. 17, 18; 
v. 30. There was a needs-be, that the nation should disown 
his rights and their obligations before the Roman governor 
could have any power over him. John xix. 11, and see notes on 
that verse. We observe also, the tranquillity with which our 
Lord vividly depicts his impending sufferings. He was speaking 
the words of the Father as his minister, not his own words. 
John xii. 49, 50 ; xiii. 21. On another occasion, during the 
same day, he spake of them as a man having the susceptibilities 
of our nature with the deepest emotions. See John xii. 27. 

Matt. xxi. 42. "Jesus saith unto them: Did ye never read 
in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the 
same is become the head of the corner : this is the Lord's 
doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?" 

Luke's narrative is more graphic. After relating the parable, 
and the question the Lord put upon it, he represents him as 
answering his own question, which drew from some of the 
bystanders a deprecatory response which gave occasion for this 
quotation from Psalm cxviii. 22, 23. We may paraphrase the 
passage thus: "What then shall the Lord of the vineyard do to 
these husbandmen ? I will tell you what he will do to them : 



THE PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD. 259 

He will come and destroy them and give the vineyard to 
others." Hearing this, some of them exclaimed, God forbid it. 
But He, looking intently (ifi^Xe^a^) at them, said, Does the 
punishment seem to you severe? What then is the meaning 
of this that is written in the Psalms: the stone that the 
builders rejected as unworthy a place in God's building, the 
same has become, in spite of them, the very head-stone of the 
corner. 

Substantially, the three Evangelists agree ; all of them nar- 
rate the quotation in connection with the parable, and as exposi- 
tory of its meaning. Luke shows its particular connection with 
what was said before. The seeming discrepancy arises from 
the different degrees of particularity observed by the Evange- 
lists, in narrating the same matter. It has already been suffi- 
ciently explained. See last note. 

The quotation is from one of the Messianic Psalms ; it is an 
allegory taken from architecture, as the parable is from the 
business of agriculture carried on by tenants. Both figures 
are combined by Paul in 1 Cor. iii. 9. "For we are co-laborers 
with God" in cultivating his vineyard — in erecting his building, 
the Church. See Matt. xvi. 18. "Ye are God's husbandry," 
or tillage, "Ye are God's building." A building is, perhaps, 
the most common figure of the true Church, 1 Pet. ii. 5 ; Eph. 
ii. 20 — 22; iv. 16; 1 Cor. iii. 16; vi. 19, taken, as we suppose, 
from our Lord's declaration, Matt. xvi. 18 : " On this founda- 
tion (ocxooojuL^aco) I ivill build my Church," &c. The quotation 
we are considering implies, that Israel, as a nation, were first 
chosen as the builders. Their election to this service was con- 
nected with exceeding great and glorious promises, but proving 
unfaithful to their trust in all .their generations, they forfeited 
their privileges, and God was about not only to take them 
away, but inflict condign punishment, as the Lord had solemnly 
declared at the conclusion of the parable. Luke xx. 16; 
Mark xii. 9. 

Matt. xxi. 43. " Therefore \_Ata touto, for this reason] I 
say unto you, The kingdom of God, which was first promised to 
you as a nation, shall be taken from you," [as a nation, and] 
"shall be given \J.dvef\ to a nation bringing forth [noeouvTc, 
making or producing] the fruits thereof." 

This declaration of the Saviour is recorded only by Matthew. 
It stands in immediate connection with the quotation from the 
one hundred and eighteenth Psalm, and sets forth in the plainest 
language, the import and bearing of the parable. The last 
clause of the verse, "bringing forth the fruits thereof," shows 
the connection. The chief priests and the pharisees, if they 
doubted about the meaning before, could doubt no longer, 



•260 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

verse 45. We might, perhaps, without marring the sense, 
transpose this verse, so as to read it in connection with the 
41st and the 44th verses, in connection with the 42d — although 
we conceive the actual arrangement was designed to interlock 
the quotation from the Psalm with the parable, and then to 
declare the moral or import of both in their order. 

However this may be, the verse, taken in connection with 
the preceding context, declares the result of the legal dispensa- 
tion, which is the great lesson of the parable. That dispensa- 
tion commenced at Horeb, the place which Israel reached on 
the forty-seventh day after their exodus from Egypt, amidst 
the most wonderful displays of the Divine presence, favour, 
and power. While encamped at that place, the law was de- 
livered to them, and they were brought into new covenant 
relations wi f h God, Moses being the mediator. Gal. iii. 19. It 
will be instructive to dwell a little on this subject. 

The blessings which God covenanted to bestow on Israel, 
upon the condition of their obedience, are here summed by the 
Saviour in the words " The kingdom of God" — for it was the 
kingdom of God he declared should be taken from them in 
consequence of their unfaithfulness, according to the repre- 
sentation of the parable. The substance of the covenant is 
contained in Exod. vi. 7, 8, and more fully in Exod. xix. 5,6, 8. 
"I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a 
God." "Now, therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and 
keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto 
me, above all people : for all the earth is mine. And ye shall 
be unto me a kingdom of priests and an holy nation." And all 
the people answered together, and said, "All that the Lord 
hath spoken, we will do. See Exod. xxiv. 3 — 8. The covenant 
thus concluded was a continuing covenant. It embraced not 
only that generation, but their posterity to the remotest period. 
This is virtually asserted in Deut. v. 2, 3, " The Lord our God 
made a covenant with us in Horeb. The Lord hath made not 
this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us who are all 
of us alive this day." See Exod. xxiii. 20, 25; xxix. 45, 46; 
xxxiii. 16; Deut. iv. 7, 20, 23, 31, 34; vii. 6—9; x. 15; xiv. 2; 
xxvii. 9, 10; xxix. 9 — 13; xxvi. 17, 18. This covenant was 
renewed at Shechem in the time of Joshua, Josh. xxiv. 22 — 25, 
and many years afterwards in the reign of Joash, 2 Kings 
xi. 17; 2 Chron. xxiii. 16; and again in the reign of Josiah. 
2 Kings xxiii. 2, 3; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 30, 31; Jer. xi. 1—10. 
It was renewed in the days of Asa, 2 Chron. xv. 12, and again 
in the days of Nehemiah, Neh. xi. and x., and this renewal is 
one of the last events recorded by inspiration in the public 
history of that people. Strictly, therefore, it was not -only a 



THE PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD.. 261 

national, but a continuing covenant — running with the race of 
Israel and embracing that people in all their generations. The 
mission of John the Baptist presupposed that the covenant with 
the nation still subsisted, and his baptism and preaching repent- 
ance assumed that the national repentance and faith and hearty 
compliance with the covenant on the part of the whole people, 
should secure to that generation the covenanted blessings, not- 
withstanding the sins of their forefathers. Nay more, the Lord 
assured them, that it was because they not only yielded no 
fruits, but, in the words of the parable, were about to kill the 
son and heir, that the kingdom would be taken from them. 

The covenant then was a subsisting one, and the parable 
teaches us, on the one hand, that the nation had continually 
broken it in all their generations, and on the other, that God 
had forborne with them, and as it were held himself bound by 
his promises until that time, though he might justly have cast 
the whole nation off, generations before, as he did ten of their 
tribes, and would have done so with the rest had it not been for 
his covenant with David. Jer. xxxiii. 17; 1 Kings viii. 25; 
2 Chron. vi. 16. But now the time had come when he would 
forbear no longer. The covenant with David he had fulfilled 
so far as to raise up the Messiah from his seed, and send him 
to the nation. He was the Son mentioned in the parable. 
By rejecting him and putting him to death, that generation 
filled up the measure of Divine forbearance to their nation, 
Matt, xxiii. 32, and the covenanted kingdom was declared to 
be forfeited. 

By the kingdom of God, our Lord alludes especially, as we 
suppose, to the words in Exod. xix. 6. "Ye shall be unto me 
a kingdom of priests." However this may be, we cannot be 
mistaken in supposing that the kingdom of God had been 
committed to that people in some especial sense, Rom. ix. 4, 5, 
or at least that the nation stood in some peculiar relation to it ; 
as the husbandmen did to the vineyard. If it were not so, we 
see not how the kingdom of God could have been taken from 
them, and given to another nation. That the kingdom of God 
was not theirs by right of ownership, is too plain to be 
argued. The nature of the promise forbids us to suppose 
any other privilege than that of eminent service, and the 
exalted glory and happiness connected with such service. We 
infer this from the words last quoted from Exod. xix. 6. "Ye 
shall be unto me a kingdom of priests," — -a promise which 
reminds us of Rev. i. 6 ; v. 10 ; xx. 6; 1 Pet. i-i. 9; passages 
which we may regard as expository of the words of this 
covenant. Adopting this as the meaning, God's covenant with 
the people was, that he would make it the honoured instrument 



262 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

in his hand of bringing back to the world his kingdom, which 
it should be their privilege first to enter, and then, under the 
Messiah, to administer. See Dan. vii. 27. Hence the kingdom 
was first preached to them, Matt. iii. 2 ; iv. 17, and not until 
it was rejected, could it be taken from them and given to others, 
Matt. x. 6 ; xv. 24 ; Rom. xv. 8, 27. 

But observe, the Lord does not say the kingdom shall be 
taken from them and given (k&vew) to the Gentiles or to all 
nations, but (id use) to a nation — another nation, not named on 
this occasion, or in any way designated. The minds of the 
bystanders would naturally be directed by this language to some 
other contemporary nation, to be elected or chosen as Israel 
had been. Or some of them, remembering what God had said 
to Moses, Numb. xiv. 12; Deut. ix. 14, might have supposed 
him to mean, that God would choose some individual, as he 
chose Abraham and Jacob, and raise up from him a nation to 
whom he would transfer the kingdom. Either supposition 
would not be an unnatural inference from this expression; 
and a nation so chosen, or raised up, would be an elect 
people, in the same sense that Israel was. Our Lord, however, 
tacitly alluded to a nation, to be elected and gathered out of 
all nations, during a long succession of generations, according 
to the foreknowledge of God, and prepared for it through 
sanctification of the Spirit, 1 Pet. i. 2, into which all those who 
had been given to him by the Father in the covenant of 
redemption should enter, and. no others — in one word, his 
Church. The idea he does not develope. It was the fact only 
of the substitution of another nation in the place of Israel, 
which he now declares. In his intercessory prayer, the elect 
people, intended in this place under the idea or description of 
a nation, are much more distinctly referred to. 

But what we desire the reader particularly to notice is, that 
the original plan of committing the kingdom, in the sense 
explained, to one nation, chosen out of all the nations, is not 
abandoned in consequence of the unfaithfulness of the nation 
first chosen. That is not the method of the Divine adminis- 
tration. Of the march of Divine Providence it may truly be 
said, Nulla vestigia retrorsum. The owner of the vineyard did 
not resolve to destroy it or abandon it, or throw it open to the 
first occupant in consequence of the bad faith and wickedness 
of the first tenants. His plan he persists in. The only change 
he makes is in the persons he employs to execute his original 
design. So in the interpretation of the parable. The only 
change to be made, is the substitution of one nation, repre- 
sented by a company of tenants, for another, though raised 
up and constituted by a different method. The first was elected 



THE PARABLE OP THE VINEYARD. 263 

as a race according to the flesh — the second are begotten of 
God, by the Spirit. John i. 13; James i. 18. The first 
appeared visibly on earth from the time they were first chosen 
as an organized people, and continued visible through many 
generations. *The second has ever been, and still is, without a 
local habitation or a name among the nations. The greater 
portion of it has passed the gates of death. Some are passing 
now, and some, perhaps many, are yet to come into being. 
Those composing the fragment of it now on earth, comparatively 
but a small number, are scattered as wheat growing among 
tares, with no marks of distinction but the fruits of the king- 
dom they bear. Nor are they to be gathered during the 
present order of things, and visibly appear as one body. The 
gates of Hades which conceal them must first be unbarred, 
Matt. xvi. 18, and the Lord himself appear in his glory to 
establish his kingdom, and judge the nations,* before their 
number can be consummated, and they can appear. Matt. 
xvi. 18. 

Those who understand by the kingdom of God, the present 
dispensation of the Gospel among all nations, conclude, con- 
sistently enough with their theory, that the promises first made 
exclusively to Israel, are to be bestowed upon all nations, with- 
out discrimination, but in doing so they disregard the obvious 
import of the words of the Saviour ; for admitting that in 
consequence of the fall of Israel, the kingdom of God is to be 
preached to all nations and to every creature, Matt, xxviii. 
19, 20; Mark xvi. 15, yet it follows not that all will receive it; 
on the contrary, our Lord teaches with express reference to 
this dispensation, that although the many are called, few only 
are chosen, Matt. xvii. 14, and the chosen ones only enter into 
that elect nation, upon which the kingdom promised to Israel 
will be conferred. 

It is plain, also, that if those specific blessings, which were 
conditionally promised to Israel at Horeb — the same that the 
Saviour solemnly declared should be taken from them, and 
given to another nation — are to be conferred on all nations 
indiscriminately, or upon all nations considered as one nation, 
at any time during the progress of the present dispensation, 
then the Divine purpose is, to make all nations a peculiar 
people unto him, above all people, and a kingdom of priests ; a 
supposition which is repugnant to the words of the promise, as 
well as the words of the Saviour. But this argument we shall 
more fully consider hereafter. 

* That this elect people, though now invisible, and even without a local 
habitation or a name on earth, may yet be called a nation, (sifo?) is proved by 
1 Pet. ii. 9. See notes on Acts ii. 47. 



264 NOTES ON SCRIPTUEE. 

Matt. xxi. 44. " And whosoever shall fall on this stone, 
shall be broken, [ouvdlaodyaezm, dashed into pieces] but on 
whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder," 
[hxprrjaec, make chaff of him, and scatter him to the winds. 
See Robinsons Lex. New Test. Comp. Dan. ii.»44 in LXX.] 
Luke xx. 18. 

The stone is frequently employed as an emblem of Christ. 
It is so employed in this verse, and in Ps. cxviii. 22, 23, 
quoted in the 42d verse. In Gen. xlix. 24, Christ is called 
<% The Shepherd, the Stone of Israel." In Zech. iv. 7, he is 
called the Head Stone. Isaiah, viii. 13, 14, 15, foreseeing his 
rejection by Israel, calls him a stone of stumbling and rock of 
offence, (see 1 Pet. ii. 6 — 8; Rom. ix. 33; Acts iv. 11; Eph. 
ii. 20; and Daniel, ii. 34, 45,) evidently refers to the Messiah 
under the emblem of a stone cut out of the mountain without 
hands. The verse we are considering comprises the totality of 
the present dispensation of the Gospel. In the first clause of 
it, our Lord refers,* as we doubt not, to Isaiah viii. 14, 15, 
which was eminently fulfilled in the fall of Israel, and the 
breaking up and continued dispersion of the nation by the 
Romans. Regarded as a prophecy, it denotes the events more 
plainly described in the next parable, under the imagery of a 
captured and burned city. Matt. xxii. 7. The prediction has 
also been fulfilled in the uninterrupted calamities the Jews 
have suffered in all their generations since that event, in con- 
sequence of their hitherto abiding blindness and unbelief. 
Luke xxi. 22 — 24. Thus understood, how fearfully significant 
is this prediction! 

In the last clause of this verse, our Lord refers, as we sup- 
pose, to the prophecy of Daniel, ii. 31 — 45, and especially to 
verses 34 and 45. He points us to the end of the times of the 
Gentiles, Luke xxi. 24, and those terrible judgments which are 
to precede the restoration of Israel, and the dispensation of the 
restitution of all things.* 

These judgments, we are taught, will fall in their intensity 
upon the nations symbolized by the image, Dan. ii. 31 — 38, or, 
as Paul teaches, 2 Thess. i. 8, 9, upon those in Christian lands, 
who are living in heathen ignorance of God, notwithstanding 
the Gospel has been fully preached among them. 

The fourth kingdom represented in the image, Dan. ii. 40, 
is, by the almost universal consent of interpreters, understood 
to be the Roman Empire, as it existed at the commencement of 
our era. Its bounds, as then established, comprise Christendom 

* Compare this clause with Dan. ii. 45, in the Greek: K*/ » $&<jixu& aLvov 
AeTTwyw Kiti MKjumrti Trcttrcts ra.s fix.<riKu*s, k. t. k. 



THE PARABLE OF THE VINEYARD. 265 

in its largest extent in any age. Hence, we understand the 
apostle and the prophet as referring to the same judgments. 
But what we would especially remark is, the discriminative 
justice of the Divine administration, and the difference which 
these words of the Saviour put between the breakers of the 
law, and those who abuse the grace of the Gospel. Severe as 
were the judgments which came upon Israel, they were not 
utterly destructive. Though the nation, by falling on this 
stone, was broken, and scattered to the four winds of heaven ; 
and although the days of vengeance have come upon that 
people, in which all things written by Moses, Deut. xxviii. 
15 — 68, and the prophets, shall be fulfilled, Luke xxi. 22, yet 
they have been, and are still preserved, as a race of men ; and 
when these days shall be ended, they shall be restored, Deut. 
xxx. 1 — 6, to their land and the Divine favour, and a new 
covenant shall be made with them, different from the covenant 
made with their fathers, Heb. viii. 8—13; Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34, 
while a full end shall be made of all the nations upon which 
the stone shall fall. Jer. xlvi. 27, 28; Dan. ii. 35, 45. See 
vii. 11 ; see Heb. x. 28, 29. 

Matt. xxi. 45. "And the chief-priests and Pharisees hear- 
ing his parables, knew that he spake of them." 

With design the Evangelist throws in this observation at this 
place, and not at the conclusion of the parable of the marriage, 
which he proceeds immediately to record. The parable of 
the two sons, our Lord pointedly applied to the chief-priests 
and elders of the people ; including, no doubt, all who con- 
curred with them in their principles and conduct. The parable 
of the householder, and the vineyard, also, had an especial 
reference to the ruling classes, including those who exercised 
offices of instruction ; although the people, generally, partook 
deeply of the national sins. The whole nation were, in the 
general sense of the parable, "husbandmen and builders," for 
it was with the people as well as the rulers, the covenant, 
Exod. xix. 5, 6, 8, was made. Yet, the priests, teachers, and 
rulers, to whom the power of government and instruction had 
been committed, were, in a special sense, the husbandmen and 
builders ; and by reason of their authority and controlling 
influence, chiefly responsible for the sin and unbelief of the 
nation. Matt, xxiii. 13. In this sense, the chief-priests and 
Pharisees understood the Saviour, and rightly, as we infer from 
this passage. The parable of the marriage, in the next 
chapter, on the other hand, as has been already said, was 
designed to apply to all classes, without distinction; not to the 
influential or governing classes in particular, and this remark 
34 



.266 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

of the Evangelist discriminates between them in their appli- 
cation. 

Matt. xxii. The parable of the marriage. 

This is the last of our Lord's public parables. It was pro- 
nounced, as the last two mentioned were, in the temple at 
Jerusalem, just before his final departure from it. It is an 
allegory consisting of two parts ; the first part ending at (verse 7) 
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans, A. D. 70, and the 
second, stretching forward through the whole of the present 
dispensation of the gospel among the Gentiles, down to the 
second coming of the Lord, and the gathering of his elect people 
to himself. It is a similitude of the kingdom of heaven, but 
altogether different in its design from those recorded in the 
thirteenth chapter of this Gospel. The action of the parable 
commences at the earliest with the preaching of John the 
Baptist. By the marriage festival we understand the peculiar 
blessings included in the covenant Jehovah made with Israel at 
Horeb. See notes on the last parable. 

By the invitation to the marriage, we understand the call 
made by John, and our Lord and his apostles, upon the nation 
to perform the conditions of that covenant by receiving the 
kingdom and its King with the obedience of faith. The first 
invited guests were all those whom John was sent to baptize — 
the whole nation, without distinction or exception. The 
servants first sent forth (verse 3) had executed their commission, 
when John was put to death. Matt. xiv. 1 — 13. See notes on 
that passage. The other servants (verse 4) had executed their 
commission when Jerusalem, on the eve of its overthrow, was 
encompassed by the Roman armies, A. D. 70. The 8th verse 
is a formal repudiation of Israel, as the elect people under the 
covenant of law, Hos. i. 9, which became irrevocable and 
complete when the temple was destroyed, and the people 
dispersed among all nations by the sword of the Romans. Luke 
xxi. 24. The theocracy was then entirely withdrawn, and Jew 
and Gentile were placed absolutely on the same level, in respect 
to the Divine proceedings shadowed forth in the 9th and 10th 
verses of the parable. See the notes on Acts iii. 19 — 21. For 
after those events, that people could be found only on "the 
highways and hedges," Luke xiv. 23, and if brought to the 
marriage at all, must be brought from thence, with such 
others as were found willing to obey the command of the 
King's servants. 

Consider again the brevity with which the greatest events 
the world has witnessed are represented. The whole history of 
the preaching of the gospel, from the fall of Jerusalem, hangs 
on these two verses, 9th and 10th. To mention only a few of 



THE PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE. 267 

them: — (1) The persecutions under Domitian, A. D. 94;* under 
Trajan, a. d. 155; Antonine, A. D. 164; Septiinius Severus, 
A. d. 205; Maximin, A. d. 235; Decius, a. d. 251; Valerian, 
A. d. 255; Aurelian, A. D. 270; and Diocletian, A. D. 303. 
Next, (2) the establishment of Christianity by Constantine, 
a. d. 323, as the religion of the Roman Empire. (3) The rise 
of the Papacy, and its progress to unbounded power. (4) The 
corruption of Christian doctrine by Arians and other heretics ; 
by Popes and councils. (5) The Reformation from Popery ; 
the rise and progress of the Protestant churches ; and (6) the 
more recent Christian missions to Pagan countries; and the 
translating, printing, and distributing of the Bible among all 
nations. All these, and many more particulars, are not 
brought into view by the parable. Nor does it notice, in 
any form, the actings of those who have gone forth as servants 
of the king, without being sent by him. For these we must 
turn to another parable. Matt. xiii. 25. This parable has 
respect only to the true servants of the king, and their 
accomplished work, without any allusion to the impediments 
they were to meet with, or the persecutions they were to suffer 
in performing it 

In harmony with this characteristic of the parable, is the 
time of its action. It is brief, yet undefined, in respect of its 
duration. The imagery is taken from the economy of human 
life, and considered as an actual occurrence, the whole repre- 
sentation would be reasonably circumscribed within a single 
day, or even an hour, according to the diligence and success of 
the king's servants. During a brief interval only, the enter- 
tainment already prepared and ready to be served up, can be 
supposed to wait. As soon as the servants have executed the 
king's command, he appears. The representation of the parable, 
in this respect, is in harmony with the doctrine of the uncer- 
tainty of the time of our Lord's coming. Mark. xiii. 32; 
Matt. xxiv. 36. It depends, if we may so say, upon the full 
execution of the commission which the Lord gave the apostles, 
and through them to all his servants and followers. Matt, 
xxviii. 19; Mark xvi. 15; Matt. xxiv. 14. When that elect 
people who, in the Divine purpose, have been substituted in the 
place of Israel, -shall be fully gathered, then the Lord will 
appear in the midst of them and celebrate that marriage festival 
which this parable represents. See Rev. xix. 9. 

Commentators have noticed the likeness between this parable 

* That under Nero, a. d. 66, occurred while Jerusalem was standing, and 
during the period which we have allotted to the second mission of the servants, 
verse 4. 



268 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

and that of the Great Supper. Luke xiv. 15 — 24. That parable 
is, in truth, a similitude of the kingdom of heaven, although it 
was not put forth as such. It shows the manner in which the 
Jewish nation, and the Jews individually, refused the kingdom 
when it was preached to them by John and our Lord, verses 
16 — 20. It shadows forth, also, the present dispensation of 
the Gospel among the Gentiles, verses 21 — 24. But the para- 
ble under consideration, so far as it respects the Jews as the 
elect people, is more specific. It was pronounced as a simili- 
tude of the kingdom which had been preached to them exclu- 
sively ; and, consequently, they only were represented by the 
first invited guests. And when our Lord comes to speak of 
the judgments which their national and individual sins were 
about to bring upon them, he almost drops the drapery of the 
parable, that he might show them not only the nature of these 
judgments, but the form in which they would come, verse 7. 
Their city should be burned, and they themselves should be 
destroyed by the armies which their King, whom they had dis- 
honoured and contemned, would send upon them. It is to be 
noticed, also, that in the parable of the Great Supper, our 
Lord does not represent the occasion upon which it was made, 
nor does he denote the character or rank of the person who 
made it; nor does it appear that any particular relation sub- 
sisted between him and the guests he invited. It was addressed 
to an individual, at a private entertainment, in reply to an 
observation which implied a too confident expectation of enjoy- 
ing the blessings of the kingdom. This parable, on the other 
hand, is founded upon the relation between a king and his sub- 
jects. The occasion was an extraordinary one, intimately 
connected with the honour of the king, and of the heir of his 
throne. The dishonour done him by his subjects was a breach 
of their allegiance for which they deserved, and received, severe 
punishment. As before suggested, it is the complement of the 
two preceding parables, and was added to show the grounds of 
the Divine judgments as they affected all classes of the people, 
without discrimination between the rulers and the ruled. Thus 
much upon the scope and general import of this parable. We 
now proceed to submit a few observations on some of the 
particulars. 

Matt. xxii. 2. "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a 
certain king which made a marriage for his son." 

As the marriage was not celebrated at the time first appointed, 
on account of the unworthy behaviour of the invited guests, but 
deferred for a little space, until other guests could be invited 
and assembled: so the kingdom of heaven would not be esta- 
blished at its first announcement, on account of the unworthiness 



THE PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE. 269 

of the Jews, to whom it was promised and preached, but would 
be deferred until another people could be called and substituted 
in their place. 

Matt. xxii. 3. "And sent forth his servants to call them 
that were [had been] bidden to the wedding, and they would 
not come." 

The action of the parable commences, as before suggested, 
with the mission and ministry of John the Baptist. Previously 
to John, the prophets had preached the kingdom of God as 
future. Matt. xi. 13; Luke xvi. 16. John first announced it 
as -nigh, and ready to be established. Matt. iii. 2; Mark i. 15. 
This act of the parable, the first mission of the king's servants, 
extends, as has been said, to the death of John. Matt. xiv. 10. 
It includes the first mission of the twelve apostles, Matt, x., 
who, as we have seen, returned from it at the death of John. 
Mark vi. 30; see notes on Matt. xiv. 10. During this period 
the call was made upon the nation as such ; but this included 
an individual or personal call on every Jew to whom the king- 
dom was preached, just as the baptism of John, which was 
appointed for the nation, see notes on Matt. iii. 6 ; and 1 Cor. 
x. 2, was individual or personal in its administration. In this 
latter sense chiefly we understand the call intended in the 
parable. See John i. 11, 12. But "they [the people] would 
not come." 

During this period none of the preachers of the kingdom 
suffered death at the hands of the people. John was put to 
death by Herod at the instigation of Herodias, through motives 
of private revenge, several months after his public ministry was 
ended. See notes on Luke iii. 20, 21. The sin of the people 
in respect to John's ministry consisted chiefly in their not 
receiving him with the obedience of faith. 

Matt. xxii. 4. "Again he sent forth other servants, say- 
ing : Tell them which are bidden : Behold, I have prepared my 
dinner; my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are 
ready: come to the marriage." 

Interpreting this parable in accordance with the distinctions 
taken in preceding notes, (see notes on Matt. xiv. 10; xv. 30; 
xviii. 11, foot-note,) the second mission of the servants, which 
may be called the second act of the parable, commenced at the 
death of John and ended at the destruction of Jerusalem ; con- 
sequently it includes the latter portion of our Lord's public 
ministry, the mission of the seventy disciples, Luke x., and the 
whole ministry of all the apostles, except the apostle John, 
under their second commission. While our Lord remained with 
them, none of them suffered death or violence. John xvii. 12; 
xviii. 8, 9. After his death persecutions arose. Stephen was 



270 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

stoned, Acts vii. 59 ; viii. 1 ; Herod vexed some of the Church 
and killed James. Acts xii. 1, 2. The Acts of the Apostles 
and the Epistles of Paul contain abundant evidence that perse- 
cutions of the apostles and their disciples, by the Jews, were 
rife and unrelenting, which Paul alleges as a reason why the 
wrath of God was about to break forth against that people, and 
abide upon them (efc re^oc) until the end, i. e. aicovot;. 1 Thess. 
ii. 14 — 16. Their cruel treatment of the servants of a the king" 
was the filling up of their sins, and provoked him to destroy 
them and their city. 

Matt. xxii. 5. "But [djueXyaavTez, neglecting or paying no 
attention to the call] they made light of it, and went their ways, 
one to his farm, and another to his merchandise." 

Of those called or invited, there were two classes. The one 
merely made light of, or neglected the invitation, preferring 
their ordinary avocations to the honour their king proffered 
them. This was probably a numerous and perhaps much the 
largest class. To such the apostle seems to allude in Heb. 
ii. 3.* 

Matt. xxii. 6. "And the remnant" [of os lot™, but the 
rest, namely those who did not merely neglect the call] "took 
his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them." 

The representation in this verse compels us to extend this 
second mission of the servants to the destruction of Jerusalem. 
Historical facts would not justify the representation if this 
second mission terminated before our Lord's ascension; for 
none of the king's servants were slain until after that event. 
Besides it has been shown, see notes on Acts iii. 19 — 21, that 
while the temple stood, and the worship of it was permitted, 
and the rites of their law allowed to Jewish converts by the 
apostles, the Jews had not entirely lost their prerogative. See 
Acts xiii. 46. Peter addressed them as still "the children of 
the prophets and of the covenant God made with their fathers," 
Acts iii. 25, and see Bom. ix. 1 — 5, and promised them, even 
then, the second mission of Jesus Christ upon the condition of 
their national repentance and faith. This interpretation is 

* no)? »/uiiz iK,q>iu£oju.t8ct thxmavthc &/uiK»crAvric o-arHpixc. How shall we escape if 
we neglect a salvation so great ? The word (crampix) salvation is employed in 
Scripture to convey many different degrees of meaning. See the use of the 
word in Acts xxvii. 20, 34; Heb. xi. 7; Matt. ix. 21, 22; Mark v. 23, 28, 34; 
vi. 56; x. 52; Luke viii. 36, 48, 50; xvii. 19; John xi. 12; Acts iv. 9; xiv. 9; 
Romans xi. 26 ; Rev. xxi. 24. Hence Paul adds to it the qualifying word 
(r»Ktx.xvr»c) so great. He means by salvation not merely release from condem- 
nation, but salvation with glorification and exaltation to the rank and condition 
of kings and priests in the kingdom of God, which was at first offered to 
the Israelites exclusively, but being rejected by them, will be conferred upon 
that elect people which this dispensation was appointed to substitute in their 
place. 



THE PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE.. 271 

enforced by the fact already mentioned, that the parable seems 
to extend this mission of the servants to that event, verses 6 
and 7. 

Matt. xxii. 8. " Then said he to his servants : The wed- 
ding indeed is ready, but they that were bidden were not 
worthy." 

This is a sentence of repudiation, or the formal exclusion of 
Israel as the elect nation from the high glories of the cove- 
nanted kingdom. Trial had been made of them under the 
covenant of law, before the Holy Spirit was given. Trial had 
been made of them again under the covenant of grace, after the 
Spirit was given. For a time the Gospel was preached to them 
exclusively. Acts xi. 19 ; see Gal. ii. 7. The epistles of Paul, 
and Peter, and James, falling as they do within this period, 
show how abundantly the apostles laboured in their behalf. 
They were tried nearly forty years — a whole generation — as 
faithfully as the Gentiles were, but with less effect, though they 
had the advantage of greater light and knowledge. But all in 
vain. By their neglect and contempt of the Gospel, and their 
persecutions of the "servants of the king," they proved them- 
selves unworthy, and they were cast off. 

Matt. xxii. 9. "Go ye, therefore, into the highways, and 
as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage." 

This may be called the third great action of the parable. It 
commenced at the destruction of Jerusalem, and the dispersion 
of the Jews among all nations. The end of it we see not yet. 
All the apostles, except John, were then dead. The servants 
intended, therefore, must be those composing the churches 
which had been organized and established by the apostles in 
various parts of Asia, Europe, and Africa, or their leaders or 
rulers. Thus interpreted, the parable regards them as mis- 
sionaries, or missionary bodies, whose chief duty it was to exe- 
cute the command of the king. It is noticeable, also, that the 
command could not be applicable personally to Peter or Paul. 
They had fulfilled their course. Nor even to John, nor to any 
one servant. It was addressed to many; to all the king's 
servants. The parable contemplates, therefore, no hierarchy 
organized under one supreme head, but individual servants, 
each having the same mission and charged with the same duties, 
and accountable only to the King, their Master. 

If we interpret this verse by Matt, xxviii. 19; xxiv. 14; 
Mark xvi. 15, the mission of the servants was and is world- 
wide, and its duration, though not defined, till the second 
coming of the Lord, represented in the parable by the king's 
coming in to see the guests. Indeed that great event seems to 
be dependent upon the full execution of this service, and con- 



.272 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

sequently, according to the representation of the parable, will 
occur sooner or later according to the zeal, activity, and success 
of the servants in performing it. Thus interpreted, the motive 
which the parable furnishes for missions with those who love 
the Lord's appearing, see 2 Tim. iv. 8, is stronger than any 
other that can be imagined. 

Again, we observe that the servants were commanded to bid 
all, as many as, and whoever, they should find, to the marriage ; 
that is, to the marriage festival which had been prepared, and 
from which the first invited guests, the Jews, had been rejected. 
No change in the blessings proffered is intimated, but only in 
the persons who were to enjoy them. 

Matt. xxii. 10. "So those servants went out into the high- 
ways and gathered together all, as many as they found, both 
bad and good, and the wedding was furnished with guests." 

This is an allegorical representation of the preaching of the 
Gospel, and of its results. The servants gathered together all, 
as many as they found, both bad and good. The representation 
is, of a mixed company ; and in this respect it agrees with the 
parables of the tares of the field and of the net cast into the 
sea. Matt. xiii. 30, 40, 48. In thus proceeding the servants 
obeyed strictly the command of the king. The result was just 
such as the king might have expected from the faithful execu- 
tion of his orders. Yet he acted advisedly in giving them, 
relying on himself to preserve the occasion from dishonour, by 
excluding from the festival those whom he found unworthy. 

For observe : he gave his servants no authority to admit any 
to the marriage. This prerogative he reserved to himself, 
which he is represented as exercising personally, and not by a 
delegate or vicar. 

Matt. xxii. 11 — 13. " And when the king came in to see 
the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding- 
garment. And he saith unto him, Friend, how earnest thou in 
hither, not having a wedding-garment ? And he was speechless. 
Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, 
and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness: there 
shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 

This portion of the parable refers to the scene of the advent, 
into which it would be presumptuous curiously to inquire. We 
do not regard it, however, as identical with that represented in 
Matt. xxv. 31 — 46. The design of these verses is to exemplify, 
in a general way, the Lord's dealing with unworthy professors. 
The fault ascribed to the excluded guest, was a defect which 
must have been common to all the unworthy, however diversified 
their character in other respects. Hence one example is suf- 
ficient to impart the instruction the parable was designed to 



THE PARABLE OF THE MARRIAGE. 273 

convey. But that more than one person would be thus 
excluded seems inferrible from verse 10 and verse 14, which we 
now proceed to consider. 

Matt. xxii. 14. " For many are called, but few are chosen." 

These words occur at the conclusion of the parable of the 
householder and hired labourers, Matt. xx. 1 — 16, but the ap- 
plication of them is to different subjects. If we may regard 
the labourers in that parable under the same category as the 
servants in this, the rule of the Divine procedure declared in 
this verse, will be applied to the servants of the king, as well as 
to those whom they were sent forth to call. That some preached 
the (Jospel from unworthy motives, even in Paul's day, is evi- 
dent from Philip, i. 15 — 18; and that such preachers have been 
found in all ages since, the history of the Church abundantly 
proves. But confining our observations to this parable, the 
principle is applied to the gathered results of the labours of 
the true and loyal servants of the king. They called many ; 
and the call may be considered as made wherever, and by what- 
ever means, the light of the Gospel is spread. It is the Divine 
purpose, as we learn from other passages, that the world shall 
be fully evangelized. Matt. xxiv. 14. The mere light of the 
Gospel is a grace and a power, irrespectively of any special 
and saving effect given to it upon the hearts of men, by the 
Holy Spirit. It dissipate sthe darkness of paganism. It des- 
troys heathen idolatry and its abominations. It greatly 
elevates man as a rational creature. Evangelization is a Gos- 
pel term for civilization. Civilization advances or retrogrades 
just in proportion as the light of the Gospel shines brightly or 
is obscured. This worldly men perceive and acknowledge. 

But it is not in the power or nature of light, or the mere 
knowledge of Divine truth, to change the moral nature of man. 
This is the office of the Holy Spirit. It is his especial work ; 
and, in performing it, he acts in accordance with the sovereign 
purpose of election declared in this verse. Out of the many 
called, he chooses whom he pleases, and by his almighty power 
creates them anew, in order that he may form them into a king- 
dom of kings and priests, and exalt them, as new creatures, to 
thrones of glory. 

The principle thus explicitly declared at the conclusion of 
this parable, is identical with that which the Saviour assumed 
at the conclusion of the parable of the vineyard. Matt. xxi. 43. 
The election of Israel to be a kingdom of kings and priests unto 
God, was an act of Divine sovereignty. No wrong was done 
to the nations which were then passed by. And when Israel 
forfeited the condition upon which the blessings of the kingdom 
were promised, no wrong would have been done had God chosen 
35 



274 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

to substitute some contemporaneous people in their place, and 
confer upon them the privileges Israel had forfeited. Yet he 
chose rather to open a dispensation for all nations, to be con- 
tinued until all of them should be called, in order "that he 
might take out of them a people for his name." When that 
purpose shall have been accomplished, he will return and build 
again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down, and will 
build again the ruins thereof, and set it up, that the residue of 
men may seek after the Lord, and all the nations upon whom 
his name is called. Acts xv. 14 — 17; see Rev. xxi. 24. All 
Israel will then be saved, and enjoy pre-eminence among the 
nations of the earth. But they will not be exalted to the 
glories of the kingdom promised them at Horeb. 

The doctrine of election, then, as it lies imbedded in the New 
Testament, is but the development of the covenant God made 
with Israel at Horeb. The end or purpose to be accomplished 
in the administration of the Divine government by the elect 
Church, is that for which the race of Israel was originally 
chosen. 1 Pet. ii. 9, comp. with Exod. xix. 5, 6; also Rev. i. 
6; v. 10; Philip, iii. 21; Rom. viii. 29. That purpose, we 
have seen, was to create a kingdom of priests, who should sus- 
tain the most intimate relations to the Messiah, John xvii. 23, 
and have part with him in his glory and his throne. John 
xvii. 22; Rev. iii. 21. When, therefore, the Church shall be 
completely formed, the kingdom which was taken from Israel 
as a nation, will be given to the elect Church — the body of 
Christ, 1 Cor. xii. 27 — and they will exercise that rule over 
the nations of the earth, and in the kingdom of God, which 
was promised to Israel at Horeb, and would have been conferred 
upon them by the Lord Jesus, Matt, xxiii. 37, " had they indeed 
obeyed the voice of Jehovah, and kept his covenant." Exod. 
xix. 5; Matt. xxi. 43; 1 Peter ii. 9. 



CHAPTER VII. 

The plot against Christ in regard to tribute. — Christ's reply in respect to 
tribute. — The Sadducees deny the Resurrection. — Christ's answer respecting 
the Resurrection. — Resurrection promised in the ancient covenants. — The 
Resurrection promised to the Patriarchs. — Christ's answer respecting the 
Commandments. — Christ's question respecting his title as Lord. — He silences 
those who questioned him. — Intimate connection of the several parts of the 
Evangelical record. — The Jews were to hear the teachers of the Law. — "Why 
the teachers of the Law were to be heard. — Character of the Scribes and 
Pharisees. — The ambitious to be humbled, the lowly exalted. 

Matthew xxii. 15 — 46; see also Mark xii. 13 — 37; Luke 
xx. 20 — 44. The parables of the vineyard and of the marriage 
of the King's son, form a fitting conclusion of our Lord's 



THOUGHTS ON THE TWO PRECEDING PARABLES. 275 

public instructions as a teacher, whether we regard him as the 
Messiah or Son of Man. The people had rejected him in both 
characters, and nothing belonging to his public functions 
remained but his sacrificial work. Why, then, it may be 
inquired, was the rest of this chapter added? Are we to 
regard it as miscellaneous matter, without coherence between 
its parts or with the preceding context, and as having been 
recorded only on account of its intrinsic importance ; or is 
there a logical connection between its different parts and the 
instruction of the parables ? 

It would be impossible to over-estimate the importance of 
this portion of the chapter; and this consideration alone, if 
there were no others, would be a sufficient reason for recording 
it ; yet, if we consider it, especially those parts which contain 
the words of the Saviour, in connection with the preceding 
parables, we shall perceive a continuity of thought which 
reveals a special design, and may guide us in the interpretation 
of the entire passage. This will appear if we bear in mind the 
following particulars: 

(1.) In these parables Jesus had announced to the people the 
momentous truth that God would take away from them as a 
nation, the high privileges of the kingdom, which he had con- 
ditionally promised them at Horeb. In this purpose, it was 
implied that the Theocracy established over them, even in the 
lower form in which they had enjoyed it, would be withdrawn, 
and their national state be destroyed. 

(2.) That another nation would be called and substituted 
under the cevenant in their place, upon which the blessings 
of it would be conferred. Upon this part of the Divine 
procedure, the Saviour, as we have remarked already, was not 
explicit. Yet tacitly, he referred to a people to be gathered 
out of all nations by the preaching of the gospel, during 
a series of ages or generations. Involved in this idea is the 
death and resurrection of the vast majority of this substituted 
people, namely, the elect church — the very thought implied in 
Matt. xvi. 18 — and his future coming as Son of Man, when all 
his enemies should be subdued. 

These particulars, to mention no others, certainly enter into 
the Divine purpose and plan, as shadowed forth in these parables. 
They were, if we may so express it, the ruling thoughts in 
the mind of the Saviour, and influenced and even gave shape to 
his replies to the Herodians and the Sadducees. In the 
question which he proposed to the Pharisees, touching the Son- 
ship and Lordship of Christ, we shall discover an allusion to 
the denial of his divine rights and his rejection by the nation 
at that time. Bearing these considerations in mind, we proceed 
with the exposition. 



276 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Matt. xxii. 15. "Then went the Pharisees and took counsel 
together, how they might entangle him in his talk," [ensnare 
him in discourse.] 

The scene is still in the temple, and the time, the last day of 
our Lord's public ministry. The parable of the two sons, xxi. 
28 — 32, and of the vineyard, 33 — 44, greatly provoked the 
priests and Pharisees ; so much so, that they would have laid 
hands on him immediately, had they not been restrained by 
their fears of the people, verse 46. At the conclusion of the 
parable of the vineyard, it is probable, see Mark xii. 12, they 
retired to some part of the temple, to consult and concert a 
plan, by which they might destroy him, without personal 
danger; leaving him alone with the people, while he delivered 
to them the parable of the marriage. This connection of the 
verse with the last verse of the preceding chapter, is made 
obvious by Luke xx. 18, 19, 20. The plan they agreed upon 
was to substitute fraud or craft for violence, disguising their 
design by flattery. 

Of course it was indispensable to success that they should 
not personally appear in the matter; for after the severe 
denunciation they had received, and perhaps the displeasure 
they had shown, it was not to be supposed they could address 
him so soon, with words of commendation and praise, without 
being suspected of insincerity. So they would naturally reason. 
They selected, therefore, persons, probably of less note than 
themselves ; perhaps not of their own body, but such as 
favoured their principles and shared in their malice — disciples, 
(fiaOyTat;) as Matthew calls them ; trained insidious men, 
(iyxaderouz) as Luke calls them, xx. 12, to whom they joined 
some Herodians ; so called, because they were the domestics, or 
courtiers, or soldiers of Herod. See the Syriac version. Having 
concerted their plan, they watched (naparypiqcravTSZ, Luke xx. 
20,) for an opportunity to carry it into effect. It occurred when 
the Lord had finished his last parable, Matt. xxii. 1 — 14, and, 
as we may suppose, as he was upon the point of departing 
finally from the temple. If this be a correct view of the cir- 
cumstances, a good deal that follows in this and the next chap- 
ter, occurred apparently in consequence of the detention, after 
the close of his public formal address, with which his ministry 
was concluded; although we might properly add to the para- 
bles the last three verses of chapter xxiii., in which he apostro- 
phizes, with inimitable pathos, the doomed city and her children. 
But these are conjectures on which we will not dwell. 

Matt. xxii. 16. "And they sent out" [from their conclave 
or place of consultation] "unto him their disciples," [disciples 
of theirs] " with the Herodians, saying : Master, we know that 






THE TRIBUTE-PLOT, AND CHRIST'S REPLY. 277 

thou art true," [a true, sincere, candid man] "and teachest the 
way of God in truth," [we know also that thou art a fearless 
man] "neither carest thou for any, for thou regardest not the 
person of men. Tell us, therefore, Yvhat thinkest thou?" 
[what is your judgment or opinion upon this question?] "Is it 
lawful" [for us Jews, who are God's chosen people, owing alle- 
giance only to him] "to give tribute to Caesar, or not?" 

If the Herodians were a political party who maintained the 
affirmative of this question, as some conjecture, they were 
added to this committee of spies, it is probable, in order to 
give the transaction the appearance of a real dispute, which 
they wished to have settled by the superior wisdom of Jesus : 
for the Pharisees maintained the negative of the question. 
However this may be, the character they ascribed to the Lord 
was strictly just, whether they believed it or not, and in this 
respect, their words, though prompted by deceit, were not 
flattery. 

The question also was artfully conceived: For if our Lord 
had answered it, Yes, the answer would have tended to impair 
his popularity with the people ; and this it was which mad- 
dened the Pharisees so much against him. Had he answered 
iVo, they would have accused him to the governor of sedition. 
It is probable they expected the negative answer, supposing, 
perhaps, that he would not willingly impair his influence with 
the people ; and the negative answer, no doubt, they desired, as 
it would have opened what appeared to them, an easy way to 
destroy him, by a prosecution before Pilate for a political 
offence against the supremacy of Caesar. 

We must not leave this passage without remarking, how com- 
pletely our Lord's Divine nature was concealed under the veil 
of his flesh. Had the Pharisees and Herodians known who he 
was, it would not have been possible for them to approach him 
with flattery or to entertain the vain conceit of "entangling 
him in his talk." They thought of him as merely a man in his 
nature, like themselves, though endowed, as they could not 
avoid seeing, with extraordinary gifts of wisdom and power; 
yet not so transcendently wise, that he might not be over- 
reached and ensnared ; nor so powerful that he might not be 
overcome. See 1 Cor. ii. 8. 

Matt. xxii. 18, 19. "But Jesus perceived their wickedness, 
and said, [rather, But Jesus, well knowing their wickedness, 
said, John ii. 24, 25,] Why tempt ye me, hypocrites ? 
[Why do ye try me, to ensnare me, ye dissemblers?] Show 
me (to \sowg t ua too xquaou) the tribute money : [the coinage in 
which tribute is demanded by Caesar] and they brought him a 
[denarius] penny." 



2.78 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

The stress of our Lord's demand was laid on the coinage 
(to voficapLO.^) as is evident from his next question. 

Matt. xxii. 20, 21. " Whose is this image [ehojv, effigies] 
and superscription [iTrcypacpyj, inscriptio~]t They say unto him, 
Caesar's. Then saith he to them, [this, then, is Caesar's 
money, and Caesar demands tribute in his own money,] Render 
then unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the 
things that are God's." 

It was the coinage that gave the money currency. It was 
that which gave it an arbitrary or nominal value, according to 
the will of Caesar, independently of its intrinsic or real value, 
which would depend on its weight. Gen. xxiii. 16; xliii. 21; 
Ezra viii. 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30; Job xxviii. 15; Jer. xxxii. 9; 
Zech. xi. 12. Consequently, the currency of money (by tale, 
without regard to weight) of the kind and coinage produced, 
was a confession of the subjection of their civil or political 
state to Caesar. This answer, therefore, established, at least 
indirectly, the lawfulness of the tribute, and virtually affirmed 
that the payment of it was not inconsistent, in their present 
and prospective condition, with their duties to God. But 
because he did not see proper to return a direct affirmative to 
the question, the priests, to whom his answer was reported, 
perverted it into a negative, as we learn from Luke xxiii. 2. 

Some have supposed that our Lord adopted this form of 
answer to mitigate the odium of a direct admission of the rights 
of Caesar, but the supposition cannot be admitted as even a 
possible one. Consider the time of the transaction. Our 
Lord's public ministry was ended. The doom of the nation he 
had just before portrayed in his matchless parables; his own 
sufferings on the cross on the third day thereafter, were fully 
in his view. Why should he, had he been merely a man, desire 
to mitigate or soften the odium, which he foresaw was so soon 
to burst upon him without restraint? His motive in thus 
answering the question had respect, we cannot doubt, to the 
condition of the nation, not only at that time, but during all 
the ages of the present dispensation, even down to the time of 
his second coming. It was a solemn precept given .to them at 
his final departure from them, Matt, xxiii. 39, for their guidance 
in their subject condition, as long as it should continue, which 
we know will be until the final restitution of the nation to the 
land of the covenant, and their conversion. Thus we see how 
this answer connects itself with the parables in which he had 
portrayed their future history. It speaks to that people to-day, 
what it spoke to those whom the Lord personally addressed: 
"Render to Caesar"— the powers to which, by the just judgment 



ERRORS OF THE SADDUCEES. 279 

of God you are subject, 1 Tim. ii. 2; Rom. xiii. 1 — 4, "the 
things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." 

We should degrade the subject and derogate from the majesty 
of our Lord, if we were to regard this answer as evasive, or as 
an adroit escape from a snare, although the bystanders may 
have so regarded it at that time. To ensnare him was not 
possible. See Isa. xlv. 9. There was no equality nor approxi- 
mation to equality between him and his questioners in any 
respect. Rather should we regard his answer as the dictate 
of the Divine will respecting their future conduct, not only 
during the short space their national state would be permitted 
to continue, but during their approaching dispersion among the 
nations. See Jer. xxix. 4, 7. It is not probable that the 
answer was received or understood in that intent. Certainly it 
was not obeyed, in the sense in which it was given, as the his- 
tory of the nation until its utter overthrow under Adrian, a. d. 
137, proves. 

Matt. xxii. 23. " The same day came to him the Saddu- 
cees, which say that there is no resurrection" [nor angel nor 
spirit.] Acts xxiii. 8. 

The Sadducees were materialists. They held that the souls 
of men were mortal, and perished with their bodies. Josephus' 
Jewish War, book 2. chap. 12. They denied the existence of 
demons, which they included under the name of angels. Their 
question, however, had respect only to the resurrection, and 
this part only of their tenets, which were thoroughly infidel, 
therefore is mentioned by the Evangelists, or is directly noticed 
by the Saviour. The question they proposed was founded upon 
a case which, whether real or imaginary, was a possible one, 
and was supposed by them to involve a difficulty which would 
go far to prove the doctrine of the resurrection of the body an 
absurdity. The case put is familiar to the reader, and we need 
not transcribe it. 

Matt. xxii. 29. "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye 
do err, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God." 

Ignorance is a fruitful source of error. Yet of many things 
men are necessarily ignorant. Of the attributes, the works, 
and the ways of God, it is but a little they can know. Job 
xxvi. 14; Ps. cxxxix. 6; cxlv. 3. Hence the reasonableness 
and even necessity of faith in things relating to God. Yet 
often, and without being sensible of it, men measure the mean- 
ing of God's words by their conceptions of his power. Things 
marvellous in their eyes, they suppose must be -marvellous also 
in the eyes of God. Zech. xiii. 6; Gen. xviii. 14; 2 Kings 
vii. 2 ; Luke i. 20, 37 ; xviii. 27. They are often bold enough 
to adjust the scheme of his revealed purposes by their views of 



280 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

the fitness of things. This is a plausible, because it is a dis- 
guised, form of infidelity. In the text the Saviour ascribed 
this error of the Sadducees to their ignorance of God's power. 
It was an error of interpretation arising from that source; for 
they did not deny the authority of the Scriptures, at least of 
the writings of Moses ; but their low views of the power of God 
were the cause of their misinterpretation of the Scriptures in 
this and probably many other particulars. If this be the cor- 
rect estimate of this text, there are even now many Sadducean 
errors which do not pass under that name. 

Matt. xxii. 80. " For in the resurrection they [men] 
neither marry nor are [wives] given in marriage, but [both] 
are (a>c dfre?,oi) as [the] angels of God (iv ovpavw) in heaven." 

Mark xii. 25. "For when they shall rise from the dead, 
they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are (d»c 
olfjcloi) as [the] angels in heaven" [iv roc$ ohpavoc^, in the 
heavens.] 

Luke is yet more explicit, xx. 34 — 36. "The children of 
this world (too olaivoc, toutou) marry and are given in marriage, 
but they that shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world 
(too alwvoc, kxecvoo ruy^eiv) and the resurrection from the dead 
{xac zzfi avacTaazcDZ r^c e* vexpcov, and that resurrection which 
is from among the dead, viz. the first resurrection.) neither 
marry nor are given in marriage; neither can they die any 
more; for they are (laajyeloc) equal to [the] angels, and are 
children (uloe, sons) of God, being children (utoi, sons) of the 
resurrection." 

The Saviour having told the Sadducees that they were in 
error, and the source of their error, proceeds to inform them 
that their question was not well conceived or put, being founded 
upon a total misconception of the condition of those who shall 
be raised from the dead. They assumed, as the basis of their 
question, an analogy which does not exist. As if he had said, 
"Because men marry and women are given in marriage in this 
world, you ignorantly assume it as certain that the marriage 
relation will continue in their resurrection state. In this you 
err : for those who shall be deemed worthy of being raised from 
among the dead and entering into that glorious kingdom of 
priests which God promised to Israel at Horeb, will be gifted 
with immortal bodies. They will be made angelic in their 
natures. They will be sons of God, inasmuch as God, by his 
almighty power, will raise them up from the dead, and create 
them anew for himself. A condition so enduring, so exalted, 
so glorious, is absolutely inconsistent with the fleeting earthly 
relation of marriage. The doctrine of the resurrection, there- 
fore, involves no such difficulty as you imagine." 






CHRIST'S ANSWER RESPECTING THE RESURRECTION. 281 

In thus showing the Sadducees the triviality of their ques- 
tion, our Lord assumed, without pausing to prove, the existence 
of angels, which also they denied. Whether he intended by 
this allusion to angels to teach the immortality of the raised 
dead, or the incongruity of their condition with the marriage 
relation, may be uncertain. Perhaps he intended both. It is 
plain, however, from the context and other parts of Scripture, 
that he did not intend a comparison in all respects. The sub- 
ject did not call for it. Besides, men and angels are, and for 
ever will be, different orders of creatures, and while men dwell- 
ing on this earth and invested with bodies of flesh and blood, 
will for ever be inferior to the angels, yet those of the race 
who shall be counted worthy of the resurrection of which 
our Lord spoke, will, by virtue of their union to him, as we have 
reason to believe, be exalted to a greater glory and a more 
glorious inheritance than are attainable by the angels. See 
1 Cor. vi. 3: Heb. ii. 5, 7; John xvii. 22—24. 

Having thus disposed of the case, the Saviour might have 
dropped the subject; but the erroneous doctrine which sug- 
gested it, struck at the very existence of the Elect Church, the 
members of which, we have seen, are to constitute that nation 
to whom he had just before declared the kingdom of God shall 
be given. He therefore took up the main question, and went 
on to say : 

Matt. xxii. 31, 32. "But as touching the resurrection of 
the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by 
God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, 
and the God of Jacob? God is not [the] God of [the] dead, 
[men] but of [the] living." 

Mark xii. 26, 27. . " And as touching the dead, that they 
rise, have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush, 
God spake unto him, saying : I am the God of Abraham, and 
the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. He is not the God 
of [the] dead, [men] but [the] God of [the] living; ye there- 
fore do greatly err." 

Luke xx. 37, 38. "Now that the dead are raised, [do rise] 
even Moses showed at the bush, when he called the Lord the 
God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 
For he is not [a] God of [the] dead [men] but of [the] living : 
for all live unto Him." 

This answer silenced the Sadducees, as we learn from verse 
34. The multitude, who heard it, perceived its conclusiveness. 
Yet, strange to say, learned men are not agreed wherein its 
force or appositeness consists. A recent commentator, after 
stating some of the doubts which have been raised upon the 
question, resolves them by supposing that the answer was not 
36 



2-82 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

intended as an argument, but as an authoritative declaration of 
the truth. We regard it as both. But we are chiefly concerned 
with it at present as an argument, and in that light, the 
bystanders and Sadducees regarded it. 

It is usual with commentators to isolate the whole of this 
passage from the preceding context, and interpret it as they 
would in any other connection. The case which the Sadducees 
stated, and the question which they put upon it, are totally 
unlike the question of the Herodians, and both equally dis- 
parate from the parables previously recorded. This is con- 
ceded. Yet if we carefully consider our Saviour's replies to 
these questions, in connection with the parables, we shall per- 
ceive the same vein of thought lying underneath both, only 
with different modifications, arising from the diversity of the 
subjects to which it is applied. This we have endeavoured to 
show in respect to our Lord's answer to the Herodians, and 
intimated in respect to the answer under consideration. 

Before proceeding further, it is important to premise, that 
our Lord does not speak in this passage of the general resur- 
rection of all the dead, but only of the resurrection of those 
(xoxa^cwdevzEQ too aloivoc, ixetvoo Toyjztv) who shall be accounted 
worthy of that world, [aevum, age or dispensation] and of that 
resurrection, (r^c £* uexpcov, which is) from among the dead. 
This is evident from the phraseology of Luke, and especially 
from the description he gives of their condition and their char- 
acter. They will be constituted by the very act of their resur- 
rection, "sons of God;" made equal to angels, and incapable 
of dying any more. See 1 John iii. 2 ; Rev. xx. 6. To such, 
the description which Paul gives, in 1 Cor. xv. 42 — 49, is 
designed to apply. This body, or portion of the raised dead, 
as before explained in our paraphrase, will constitute that 
nation to whom God will give the kingdom, which he condi- 
tionally promised to Israel at Horeb. See Matt. xxi. 43, and 
the notes on that verse. 

Now this covenant being made, as we have seen, with Israel, 
in all their generations, involved the resurrection of all those of 
them who had died in faith, as the necessary or appointed 
means of conferring on them the covenanted blessings; conse- 
quently, if we suppose that the nation had received Jesus with 
the obedience of the heart, instead of rejecting him, God would 
have not only conferred the promised kingdom upon them, but 
upon all those (their ancestors) who had lived and died in the 
exercise of the like faith. We see not how otherwise, though 
we do not allege our ignorance as an argument, God could 
have fulfilled his covenant with them, and we are justified in 
assuming that he would have fulfilled it in this way, by the 



RESURRECTION PROMISED IN THE ANCIENT COVENANTS. 283 

reasoning of the Saviour in the passage under consideration, 
and of the apostle in Heb, ix. 17 — 19. Yet such an argument, 
framed upon the covenant at Horeb, would have been hypo- 
thetical, inasmuch as the nation had forfeited the condition 
upon which the kingdom was promised. Hence our Lord fell 
back, if the expression may be allowed, upon the earlier cove- 
nant which God made with Abraham, and confirmed unto Isaac 
and Jacob, which, being absolute and unconditional in its 
terms, the apostle informs us, Gal. iii. 17, remained firm, not- 
withstanding the forfeiture of the covenant made at Horeb. 
See Rom. xi. 30. 

It is under this earlier covenant, which, as we have just said, 
is absolute and unconditional in its terms, that the elect nation 
or substituted people of which our Lord spoke, Matt. xxi. 43, 
are to be raised up and formed. Gal. iii. 17. This earlier cove- 
nant comprises also within its scope the covenant with David, 
Gal. iii. 16, which, unlike that which was made with the nation 
at Horeb, is also absolute and unconditional in its terms. 2 Sam. 
xxiii. 5; Isa. lv. 3; Acts xiii. 34. 

The blessings promised in all these covenants are of the most 
exalted nature — the gift of immortality, and, as we have seen, 
exaltation to thrones of glory in the times of the restitution of 
all things. This elect people are designated under various rela- 
tions, all of which are unspeakably glorious. They are called 
the redeemed of Christ, his friends, his brethren, his children, 
his witnesses, his bride, his members, members of his body, of 
his flesh, of his bones ; his fellow-sufferers, fellow-kings, fellow- 
priests, the sons of God, sons of the resurrection, the temples 
of the Holy Spirit. They are said to be one with Christ, and 
he their first-born brother. 

These intimate relations to the Messiah, and the exalted 
service, under him, which such designations or descriptions 
imply, in the administration of the kingdom of God, are all 
involved in the covenants which God made with Abraham and 
David, as well as in the covenant which he made with the nation 
of Israel at Horeb, the principal difference being that in the 
former the promises were absolute, in the latter they were con- 
ditioned upon the obedience of the people. But if there be no 
resurrection of the dead, none of these privileges can be en- 
joyed, neither Christ nor his chosen people could be raised, and 
consequently the blessings forfeited by the nation were, at the 
best, but ephemeral in their nature, and their loss not greatly 
to be deplored. See 1 Cor. xv. 32. 

The doctrine of the Sadducees, therefore, made all these 
covenants empty and vain things, see 1 Cor. xv. 12 — 18, espe- 
cially in respect to those who had died in the faith, with the 



284 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

seal of God's covenant upon them ; nor did it hold out any 
better hope for the living, upon whom the penalty of the origi- 
nal transgression still abode. There could be no restitution of 
all things — no kingdom of God in which there should be no sin 
nor any curse. According to their tenets, the purpose of God 
to take the kingdom from them, Matt. xxi. 43, which the 
Saviour had just declared, w T as an idle threatening, which could 
not much harm them if it were executed. 

This part of our Lord's answer, then, is to be considered 
with respect to its bearing upon these covenants, which, we need 
not say, are far-reaching. They extend to the whole futurity 
of the earth, and all that God has purposed to accomplish upon 
it. They include all the means and agencies he has appointed 
for the ends he has in view — especially that elect people whom 
he has chosen to serve him as kings and priests in the accom- 
plishment of those ends. The simple fact that God has formed 
such purposes ensures their accomplishment. His power is 
adequate to his will. Death cannot prevent it ; for life itself 
is but the effect of his will, navret; yap aura) ^coocv, Luke 
xx. 38; Gen. i. 

It is not probable that even the most learned, orthodox, and 
devout of the nation at that time had any proper conception of 
the richness and glory of these covenants, or of the particular 
intent with which the Saviour alleged them. They contain 
unfathomable mysteries. 1 Cor. ii. 7 — 9. But they understood 
that the promises which God made to Abraham, to Isaac, and 
to Jacob were absolute, and they believed that he would surely 
perform them, even to those of former generations, who had 
part in them; and on this ground, mainly, they taught the 
resurrection of the dead, see Acts xxiv. 15,* and to this extent 
our Lord's reply to the Sadducees confirmed it. 

* Three opinions touching the resurrection prevailed to a greater or less 
extent among the Jews. (1) Some maintained that only the just or righteous 
of their nation would be raised ; (2) others maintained that the whole of 
their race (all Israelites) would be raised ; and (3) some maintained that all 
Israelites and some Gentiles would be raised. It is evident from Acts xxiv. 
14, 15, that the Jews of St. Paul's day did not adopt the first of these opinions, 
but they appear to have limited the resurrection to their nation. In Romans 
ix. 2 — 5, Paul teaches that the adoption, by which he meant the resurrection, 
Rom. viii. 23, pertained to Israelites; and hence it would seem that the 
resurrection, as a term of the original covenant, was limited to Israel. Rabbi 
Bechai says, God granted four special honours to Israel, viz. (1) the land of 
Canaan, (2) the law, (3) prophecy, and (4) the resurrection of the dead. 
Josephus, though obscure, evidently did not believe the resurrection would be 
universal. Yet the Pharisees held that all souls were immortal, and that the 
souls of pious Gentiles would be happy, though in a disembodied state, see 
Lardner Credib., book i. chap. 4, \ i., and that the souls of wicked Gentiles 
would suffer punishment in their disembodied state, see Acts xix. 15, where 
a spirit is repres anted as speaking. The philosophical Greeks, on the other 



RESURRECTION PROMISED IN THE ANCIENT COVENANTS. 285 

The words he quoted, "I am the God of Abraham, the God 
of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," conveyed a distinct allusion 
to the covenant God made with those fathers,* and the avowal 
that he was their God, implied that he would punctually fulfil 
to them all he had promised. Had he promised them nothing 
more than the immortality of their souls, then nothing more 
could be inferred from this relation. But his covenant included 
their posterity, the Gentiles, even the world itself, Rom. iv. 13; 
Gal. iii. 8, and many specific blessings, which, in a dispensation 
during which death has reigned and hitherto has passed upon 
all, Rom. v. 14, could not be fulfilled without raising them 
from the dead, in order that they may be the recipients of the 
covenanted blessings. To be their God, then, in the sense of 
the covenant, is to be their God as living men, not as disem- 
bodied spirits. The force of the last clause, Luke xx. 38, 
"for all live unto him," will be perceived from the following 
paraphrase: " He who created all things at first out of nothing, 
and by whom all creatures live, wills to be a God to them, as 
living, not as dead men. For so he interprets his own covenant 
with them, and nothing, not death itself, can prevent his will: 
for life and even being, originated in his will, and continually 
depend upon it." Acts xvii. 28; 1 Cor. i. 28. 

Matt. xxii. 35 — 40. a Then one of them [the Pharisees,] a 
lawyer [vofiexo^,'] asked him tempting him [making trial of his 
skill,] and saying: Master, which is the great commandment 
of the law? Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all 
thy mind. [Deut. vi. 5.] This is the first and the great com- 
mandment." 

This is a full answer to the lawyer's question. "What our 
Lord added was not called for by the question, but was neces- 
sary, as we shall see to the design he had in answering it. 

"And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
hand, treated the doctrine with ridicule. Acts xvii. 32. In Romans ii. 1 — 15, 
Paul addresses unbelieving Jews mainly upon principles admitted by them. 
In the 16th verse he advances a doctrine which they denied. In verses 7th 
and 10th, he speaks of the rewards of well-doing, and in verses 8th and 9th 
of the punishment of those who do evil. It is probable the idea of the resur- 
rection of the body is included in the (£a>»v ctlmmv) eternal life spoken of in the 
7th verse. However this may be, the New Testament teaches the absolute 
universality of the resurrection of all men, whether Jews or Gentiles. But it 
does not teach that all men, universally, will be raised from the dead at one 
and the same time. There is a first and a second resurrection. Rev. xx. 5, 12; 
Luke xiv. 14. The children of the covenant only, or that elect nation of which 
our Lord spoke, Matt. xxi. 43, shall have part in the first resurrection. See 
Harmer's Miscellaneous Works, pp. 221 — 264, for a more full account of the 
Jewish doctrine of the resurrection. 

* Their relation to each other as co-covenantees in the same covenant, is 
the reason why the Saviour names them all, and not one of them only. 



286 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

bour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law 
and the prophets." 

The question was a very important one, 'and from the fact 
that it was put by a person whose special employment it was 
to interpret the law, it may be inferred it was considered a 
debatable one. It was a practical question, and the lawyer, 
no doubt, proposed it under the impression of its importance in 
that respect to the nation, which he took it for granted would 
continue still to exist, with undiminished prosperity, till Messiah 
should come and crown it with unwonted glory and power. 
Our Lord's reply, on the other hand, was framed upon a vivid 
and perfect apprehension of the Divine purposes. The whole 
scheme of Providence, stretching forward to the consummation 
of all things, was present to his mind, and his answer, while it 
was perfectly apposite to the question, had a designed though 
unexplained reference to impending and remote events, of which 
the lawyer had no conception. 

We interpret this answer, then, as we did that to the question 
of the Herodians, with reference not merely to the actual pos- 
ture of the nation at that time, but its future fortunes in all 
time to come. The people, it need not be repeated, were on 
the eve of their national overthrow and dispersion. Jerusalem, 
then standing in beauty and strength, was soon to be destroyed. 
The temple in which they then stood was to be utterly demol- 
ished. All their political, social, domestic, and religious ties 
were to be disrupted by their dispersion among the nations. A 
new dispensation was about to be opened, in which the ceremo- 
nial worship of the temple would, in a few years, become 
impracticable. To this condition our Lord alluded at the 
beginning of his ministry, in his conversation with the woman 
of Samaria, John iv. 23; and now again, though less explicitly, 
at the close of it, in the words we are considering. What part 
of the law of Moses — let the reader consider the question — 
could this people observe and practice, during those days of 
vengeance, which were approaching, when their city should be 
subject to Gentile power, and themselves scattered by the 
sword? 

The Saviour, in view of these events, took occasion to 
embody in these two precepts all of the law, which, from that 
time onward, would be useful to them. The typical parts of 
it he was himself about to fulfil. The spiritual parts of it only 
could they carry with them, and observe and transmit to their 
children. These could be retained by them, and ought to be, 
under the most adverse and distressing circumstances. The 
Gospel would indeed be preached to them, enjoining repentance 
towards God, and faith in their rejected Messiah, without which 



Christ's question respecting his title as lord. 28T 

they neither would nor could obey these precepts — the first of 
which was the measure of the allegiance they owe to God, and 
the second the measure of the duty he required of them 
towards their fellow-creatures. Taken in connection with his 
answer to the Herodians, see verse 21 and notes, they form a 
compendious code of their civil or political, social and religious 
duties. Indeed the first precept in this answer is expository of 
the second precept in the answer to the Herodians. For when 
he said to them, Render to God the things that are God's, he 
imposed no other duty than that of fulfilling this first and great 
command. See Mark xii. 32, 33, 34. 

Considered in this view, there is great beauty in these 
answers of our blessed Lord to the ensnaring questions pro- 
posed to him as he was about to leave the temple. How 
suitable to the loftiness of his character! He speaks as a 
lawgiver, abrogating, in some sense, the former code, which 
was soon to become impracticable in many of its precepts, in 
order that he might adjust it to their altered condition, yet pre- 
serving its spirit and sense under new forms. 

How suitable, also, to the benevolence of his character ! He 
had come to save them. He wept over their blindness and 
unbelief, and their consequent rejection of God. In these pre- 
cepts he gives them his parting injunctions, which it would 
have been well for them in all their generations to observe. 
That admiration which discovers nothing in these passages 
beyond a strife of intellects, or an exhibition of superior dia- 
lectic skill, would degrade the Lord of glory to the puny 
measure of the potsherds of the earth. 

Matt. xxii. 41 — 45. "While the Pharisees were gathered 
together," [that is, while they remained together, before they 
had dispersed from the place where they had assembled, see 
verse 34,] "Jesus asked them, saying: What think ye of [the] 
Christ?" [whom ye are expecting.] "Whose son is he? They 
say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How 
then doth David in spirit" [moved by inspiration of the Holy 
Spirit] "call him" [that is, the Christ, his Adon,] "Lord: 
saying, The Lord" [Jehovah] "said unto" [Adoni] "my Lord, 
Sit thou at my right hand till I make thine enemies thy foot- 
stool." Psalm ex. 1. "If David then call him" [Adoni, 
my] "Lord," [not my son] "how then is he" [the Christ] "his 
Son?" 

These questions, we conceive, were suggested by the question 
of the lawyer which has just been considered, or rather by the 
answer which our Lord had given to it. He had just declared 
the duty they owed to God. The same duty, however, they 
owed to him as God's vicegerent on earth. John v. 21 — 23. 



288 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Yet they had virtually rejected him, under a misapprehension 
of his nature and office. The second of these questions, founded 
upon the quotation from Ps. ex. 1, pointed them directly to the 
source of their error. As if he had said, " The Christ promised 
to you is a much more exalted being than you conceive him to 
be. Even David, in whom you glory, as the greatest of your 
kings, moved by inspiration, called him his (Adon) Lord. It 
is, then, only in some mysterious sense that David calls him 
his Son." 

That the person whom David calls his (Adon) Lord is the 
Christ, is evident from the question. In fact the Saviour 
assumes it as unquestionable, and the Pharisees did not deny 
the assumption, and this proves that such was the commonly 
received interpretation. That the same person — this Lord 
(Adon) of David — -is a priest for ever, according to the order 
of Melchizedec, is proved by the 4th verse of Psalm ex., 
from which this quotation is made. Now the office of priest 
belongs to the human nature. A priest must be a man, not an 
angel, not the Holy Spirit, nor the Son of God in his Divine 
nature ; for every high priest, saith the apostle, is taken from 
among men, &c. Heb. v. 1 — 6. See Whitby's Com. on Heb. 
vii. 1; also 1 Tim. ii. 5; Heb. xii. 24. Of course, David had 
respect to the human nature of Christ, when he called him his 
(Adon) Lord. We may add that, in his human nature only, 
was the Messiah capable of exaltation. In his Divine nature, 
he was God. John i. 1. The whole of this Psalm, in fact, is 
prophetical of the exaltation of Christ as the Son of Man, after 
his resurrection from the dead, and is so treated by the inspired 
apostles. Markxvi. 19; Acts ii. 34— 36 ; Eph. i. 20— 22; Heb. 
ii. 7, 8; x. 12, 13; vi. 20; 1 Pet. iii. 22; 1 Cor. xv. 25; and 
see Matt. xxvi. 64; Mark xiv. 62; Luke xxii. 69. Finally, 
the person represented as speaking throughout this Psalm is 
Jehovah, see Heb. text — the person represented as being spoken 
to, David calls his (Adon) Lord. They cannot, therefore, be 
one and the same person. 

The Saviour's question then presents this difficulty: how the 
Messiah in his human nature can be the Lord of David, from 
whom, according to the flesh, he was to descend. It is to be 
observed here, that the question is framed according to the con- 
ception which the Pharisees themselves entertained of the Christ. 
They regarded him merely as a man, like David, although a 
greater man, and a more successful and glorious king. Had 
they believed that the Son of God in his Divine nature would 
become incarnate in the person of the Messiah, the question 
would have presented no difficulty except that which arises from 
the proper interpretation of the Psalm. They might have said, 



Christ's question respecting his title as lord. 289 

The Messiah will unite in his person the Divine and the human 
natures, and David recognized him as his superior in his Divine 
nature, and in his human nature only in consequence of the 
honour conferred upon it by its union with the Divine nature. 
This is the solution of the difficulty which may strike the reader 
as the true one, being founded upon what we know to be the 
fact. It is important, however, to consider whether it was pro- 
posed in this view by the Saviour. As the Son of God, the 
second person of the Trinity, the Christ was undoubtedly not 
only the (Adon) Lord of David, but his Creator. But was he 
not also, in another relation, the (Adon) Lord of David ? As 
the Son of Man, we have seen he was the King of the kings 
and the Lord of the lords of the world. All the powers of 
nature — all material and spiritual beings are absolutely subject 
to his will. In this relation he became incarnate in the line of 
David, the purpose of which, when first disclosed by Nathan to 
that pious king, filled him with amazement. As Son of Man 
he will hereafter visibly appear to judge all nations, Matt, 
xxv. 31 — 46 ; xvi. 27 ; Acts xvii. 31 ; John v. 27, and preside 
over the world as the second Adam, (to^EKI V? Tn&y)* the Lord 
from heaven. 1 Cor. xv. 47. 

In reference to this relation, we conceive, the Lord Jesus 
proposed this question to the Pharisees, and Psalm ex. jus- 
tifies this interpretation: For the same exalted being whom 
David calls his Lord (Adoni), Jehovah constitutes a priest for 
ever (sec zov accoua, LXX. ; Heb. v. 6,) and exalts to his right 
hand. In this sublime relation, David in the Spirit beheld him, 
when he called him "Lord." 

The reader is referred for a more full explanation of the 
grounds of this interpretation, to the notes on Matt. viii. 23 — 

* The word (yi"!*) Adon signifies, ordinarily, (sustentator, columen familise 

seu reipublicse.) the sustainer or supporter of a family or state, and is so called 
from (*ni<) Eden, basis; because, as the basis or foundation supports the edifice 

or structure erected upon it, so a family or state is supported by its ruler (Adon) 
or Lord. In this sense we apply the word to the Son of Man, as the (Adon) 
Lord and Judge and Ruler of the world. Such powers and prerogatives be- 
long, by Divine constitution, to his Adamic character. Ps. viii. 6; Heb. ii. 7, 8; 
The word is an appellative, and is used in Scripture as well with reference to 
God as to men. Thus, in Ps. viii. 1, Jehovah is addressed as (Adonenu) our 
Lord — our supporter. And such he is, in the highest possible sense. In one 
of our hymns we say: "God my supporter (Adoni, my Adon,) and my hope, 
my Help for ever nigh." Sarah called Abraham (Adoni) my Lord, Gen. 
xviii. 12; 1 Pet. iii. 6, in the sense of her inferiority to and dependence on 
him. See various examples of the use of this word in Ps, xii. 4; Gen. xiv. 8; 
Exod. xxiii. 17: Ps. cxiv. 7; Isa. i. 24; Mai. iii. 1; Josh. iii. 11 ; Ps. xcvii. 5 ; 
Gen. xxiii. 6, &c. Some find the same figurative idea in the word (Zzo-ihwe (king, ) 
because a king is quasi fiia-ts tow \ae. See Gussetius Comm. Heb. Ling, and 
Forster's Heb. Lex.; also Taylor's Heb. Concord. 

37 



290 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

27, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32; ix. 4; xi. 25—27; xii. 8, 18; xiii. 
37—43; xvi. 13, 14, 28; xvii. 22, 23; xx. 28, which it is 
hoped he will carefully consider before he rejects it. 

Matt. xxii. 46. "And no man [no one of them] was 
able to answer him a word." No one of them could give the 
reason or explain why or in what sense David called the Christ 
his Lord. 

They did not understand the mystery of the Messiah's 
nature either as the Son of Man or Son of God. It was as 
much hidden from the learned of the nation as it was from the 
common people. John xii. 34 ; see Rev. xxii. 16. His priest- 
hood too, or the nature and grounds of it, and the sacrifice 
which it was appointed to him to make, were equally hidden 
from them. This is evident from the laboured argument of the 
apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews, chaps, v. vi. vii. viii. 
This priesthood we have endeavoured to show was connected 
with his Adamic office as the Son of Man. The Saviour gave 
them no other clue to the question than that furnished by the 
Psalm from which he made the quotation. It was not one of 
the things which it belonged to him, at that time, to explain: 
for the Psalm presupposed his rejection by them, as his 
enemies, and his exaltation, after his sacrificial work was 
performed, to the throne of Jehovah. It also presupposed his 
right, as their Lord, to the supreme homage of their natures — 
the same homage which he had just declared was due to God 
the Father, verse 37. Herein lies the connection between this 
question of the Saviour and the question of the lawyer. The 
lawyer had asked him, what is the chief duty of man — the 
great commandment of the law. The Saviour answered, 
" Supreme love to God, and the offering up to him and his 
service of all the energies of your natures." He then inquires, 
"But what think ye of the homage due to Christ?" David, 
the greatest of your kings, and honoured above them all by the 
covenant God made with him, Ps. lxxxix. 35 — 37, called him 
his Lord, thus acknowledging his subjection to him, although he 
was not to be raised up from his seed till long after his death. 
Acts ii. 29 — 31. How then could David owe him homage, or 
render it to him ? This was the first difficulty to be resolved, 
and in order to point them to the means of resolving it, he 
inquires further, " How, or in what sense, and by what means 
the Christ is, or is to be David's son? The proper answer to 
this question would have shown that the same honour and 
service which are due to God, as he had just declared, were 
due also to Christ, as the Son of Man — the Adam of the ever- 
lasting covenant, and the Lord of the world. For such was 
the Divine will. John v. 23—27. 



THE INTIMATE CONNECTION OF THESE PASSAGES. 291 

But there is another connection to be noticed, which will cast 
additional light upon the whole passage. In the parable of the 
vineyard, the householder is represented as saying to himself, 
"they will reverence my son." As if he had said, "My 
servants the husbandmen have rejected and maltreated, because 
they were servants, although they knew they were sent by me. 
But my son is my heir, and knowing, as they do, that he will 
inherit my possessions and my honours, they will reverence 
him as they would reverence me." It is evident from the 
parable, that the householder counted upon the honour due to 
the relation, rather than upon the consideration due to the 
commission which he himself had given, because that had been 
disregarded in the case of his servants. The event, it need not 
be added, falsified this expectation. The son found himself, at 
the very moment of his arrival, in the midst of enemies. To 
this circumstance of the parable, the Saviour, as we conceive, 
tacitly alludes in his quotation from Psalm ex. 1. For 
observe, the question he proposed to the Pharisees turned 
exclusively upon the first clause of the verse, " The Lord said 
unto my Lord." There was no occasion then to quote the 
clause which relates to the subjugation of Messiah's enemies, 
unless he intended a latent or indirect allusion to his actual 
posture at that time. Thus considered, this part of the quo- 
tation is full of meaning. Jerusalem, at that very time, was 
crowded with myriads of enemies who, on the third day there- 
after, were to demand his crucifixion. Pilate and Herod and 
Roman soldiers were there. See Acts iy. 27. That very hour 
he had been insidiously attacked by the chief priests and elders, 
Herodians and Pharisees, with the design to ensnare him, and 
compass his death. We may add, the quotation was also 
a prediction of the result of the conflict, and, in this particular, 
it goes beyond the parable. It foretells his exaltation to 
Jehovah's throne, and the utter subjugation of all his enemies 
by Divine poiver, and the exaction of the homage due to him as 
the Lord of David and the Lord of the world. 

Thus we perceive that these questions of our Lord spring 
from the same great vein of thought which pervades all his 
instructions in the temple upon that memorable day. Although 
drawn forth by disconnected and apparently irrelated questions, 
there is a logical connection between his questions and his 
answers to their questions, eminently suited to the solemn occa- 
sion, and the Divine Majesty of the Saviour. 

Matt, xxiii. A leading object of these. notes is to trace 
the connection of the several parts of the evangelical record, 
and thus to illustrate obscure yet confessedly important pas- 
sages, and also furnish distinct internal evidence of its truth. 



292 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Of critical commentaries we have an abundance, but none 
written with a sole view to this object. The writer has not 
been able to accomplish much in this way, but what he has 
done may serve, to some extent, as hints to others more com- 
petent to the undertaking, and more at leisure to accomplish it. 
In the notes on Matt. i. 1, it was suggested, that this Gospel 
was composed according to a preconceived plan, which the 
author kept steadily in view, both in the selection and in the 
arrangement of the materials composing it. In the notes on 
Matt. xiv. 1, 2, this matter was adverted to again, and the 
reader was invited to review the proofs which had been given 
in support of the hypothesis. We now remark that whatever 
judgment different readers may form of the method of the 
Evangelist, none, it is probable, will be disposed to deny that 
our Lord, in his discourses and conversations, pursued a chain 
of thought, which, if the links of connection could be dis- 
covered, would satisfactorily explain many expressions and 
transitions otherwise obscure, if not quite unaccountable. What 
the writer means by this remark will be understood by those 
readers who have carefully considered the notes on the twenty- 
first and twenty-second chapters. We have now come to one 
of the most obscure transitions in any of our Lord's discourses. 
He was still in the temple surrounded by crowds of the people, 
among whom were dispersed Scribes and Pharisees, Sadducees 
and Herodians, priests, elders, and rulers. Many of his dis- 
ciples, besides the twelve apostles, we infer, were also present. 
The time was the third day before the Passover, at which he 
suffered and fulfilled the typical parts of the Levitical ritual, 
and as a sign of it the veil of the temple was to be miraculously 
rent through the midst from the top to the bottom. See notes 
on Matt, xxvii. 51 — 53; Luke xxiii. 45. On the fifth day 
after this his last public discourse, he was to rise from the dead, 
ascend to the Father, and on the approaching Pentecost to send 
the Holy Spirit upon his apostles, endow them with miraculous 
powers, and send them forth to inaugurate, under his Headship, 
a new dispensation. Yet with the most profound and lively 
consciousness of these events and purposes, he turns from his 
questioners, whom he had silenced, to the multitude and his 
disciples, and thus continued his discourse : 

Matt, xxiii. 2, 3. "The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' 
seat. All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that 
observe and do." 

At first view it strikes us as an inconsistency that our Lord 
should at such a time, and under the circumstances mentioned, 
either admit the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees to 
occupy the seat of Moses, or enjoin it on the people or his 



THE JEWS WERE TO HEAR THE TEACHERS OF THE LAW. 293 

disciples to obey their injunctions. What further need could 
there be for their instructions, seeing he was so soon to prepare 
and send to them other and inspired teachers, who would 
authoritatively" and infallibly declare to them the Divine will? 
Our perplexity is increased when we consider the character 
which he proceeds almost immediately to draw of these teachers. 
See verses 13 — 36. 

To relieve the subject of this difficulty. we must consider that 
our Lord had in view the course of Divine Providence and the 
respite of judgment God would give the nation during, what we 
may consider, the lifetime of that generation. In the remarks 
on Matt. xxii. 6, 8, and Acts iii. 19, 21, it was intimated that 
a further trial was to be made of the nation, under the dispen- 
sation of the Holy Spirit, for the space of nearly forty years, 
during which they should have an order of proofs which it was 
not consistent with the Divine plan to give them during our 
Lord's personal ministry. The first and greatest of these 
proofs was the Lord's resurrection, and to this he alluded 
under the sign of Jonas the prophet, in his answer to the 
demand the Pharisees and the Sadducees made upon him for 
further evidence. See Matt. xvi. 4, and xii. 38 — 40, and notes 
on these verses ; Luke xi. 30 is very explicit. Of the fact of 
his resurrection they had the most convincing evidence. See 
notes on Matt, xxviii. 11 — 15. This evidence was to be 
enhanced by the testimony and enforced by the miraculous 
powers and other extraordinary gifts conferred upon the 
apostles, who for a time confined their ministry to the nation. 
See Acts x. xi. 19; xiii. 46; see also Rom. ix. 4. It is 
worthy of remark that the duration of this respite of judgment, 
upon the peradventure the nation might still believe and obey, 
was not chronologically defined.* God reserved it in his own 
power to put an end to it by his providence, as he has the 
times and the seasons appointed to precede the restitution of 
the kingdom to Israel. Acts i. 6, 7. The end of the respite, 
we know, came when Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed, 
and the nation was broken up and dispersed among the 
Gentiles. See notes on the parable of the marriage, Matt. 
xxii. 6, 8. The sense of the verses under consideration, 
there-fore, as we conceive of it, is expressed in the following 
paraphrase : 

"The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat, and, by 
Divine permission, they will continue to occupy it during the 
lifetime of the greater part of this generation. For it is the 

* Perhaps there is a mystical allusion to it in the forty days appointed for 
the repentance of Nineveh, as we shall have occasion to notice hereafter. 



294 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Divine purpose, notwithstanding the enormous wickedness of 
this people, to put them upon a further trial, under the economy 
of the Holy Spirit, in order to prove whether by any means 
they can be saved from the dreadful judgments which have 
been threatened against them. As long, therefore, as God in 
his providence shall permit them to exercise the functions of 
their office, observe and do whatsoever they shall command you 
to do, in accordance with [or out of] the law." 

This paraphrase connects what we suppose to be the latent 
thoughts of the Saviour with the words he uttered. He had 
before predicted the destruction of the Jewish state, Matt, 
xxii. 7, and the taking away of the covenanted kingdom, Matt, 
xxi. 43, but it did not seem proper to him on this occasion 
publicly to enter into further particulars, by which light would 
be cast upon the times of these events. It may be proper to 
add in this place, that this provision of the Divine mercy, by 
which the times of the nation were prolonged, during the life- 
time, it is probable, of all those who were personally guilty of 
rejecting the Saviour, may account for the continuance of 
Levitical rites and practices by Jewish Christians in the apos- 
tolic churches, and the allowance and even practice of them, to 
a certain extent, by the apostles themselves. Acts xvi. If 
xxi. 20 — 24, 26,27; xx. 16. The Saviour's words not only 
allow, but seemingly command, an observance of them by Jews, 
during the period of which he spoke. In respect to Gentile 
Christians, however, no such obligation was intimated, and no 
such practice was permitted by the apostles. As inspired 
teachers and ministers of Christ, the apostles were qualified 
and authorized to carry out the Divine plan in this particular, 
Acts xv. 23 — 29, and it is not improbable that it was on the 
authority of the very passage under consideration the apostles 
drew the distinction, before mentioned, between Jewish and 
Gentile converts. 

But while the Saviour thus recognized the authority of the 
Scribes and Pharisees as teachers of the law, (and as we may 
say, for a little space, prolonged their office, by his authority,) 
he cautioned the people and his disciples against the evil in- 
fluence of their example — thus drawing a distinction between 
their personal and official character and relations. The Sad- 
ducees and the Herodians were worse — certainly not better — 
men than the Scribes and Pharisees, yet nothing is said of them 
in the ensuing discourse. The reason is, the latter were not 
looked upon by the people as teachers, or guides, or even as 
worthy of imitation in their conduct. The Scribes and Phari- 
sees, on the other hand, rightfully occupied the seat of their 
great lawgiver, and the Lord himself had just given his own 



WHY THE TEACHERS OF THE LAW WERE TO BE HEARD. 295 

sanction to their public official relations. This last considera- 
tion especially, rendered the caution of the utmost practical 
importance, lest the command he had given his disciples and 
the people should be perverted. Add to this the exterior 
conduct of the Scribes and Pharisees, as we may infer from 
this chapter, was beautiful, verses 27, 28, and imposing. Ap- 
parently they were men of prayer, verse 14 — zealous in pro- 
moting religion, verse 15 — punctilious in the performance of 
the smallest religious obligations, verse 23. They not only 
acknowledged but seemingly deplored the sins of former gen- 
erations, verse 30, and were careful to do all they could to 
repair the dishonour and the wrongs which had been done to 
the holy men and prophets of former ages, verse 29. Had the 
Saviour therefore given this command without the caution, the 
spirit and intent of it might have been — probably would have 
been — misconceived, and the people and his disciples might 
have inferred his approbation of them as guides in morals and 
conduct, as well as of their authority as teachers. Accord- 
ingly, having given the command and the caution, he proceeds 
afterwards to lay bare their real character in the sight of God, 
in such a way as to prevent the possibility of misconceiving 
his meaning. 

Matt, xxiii. 3, 4. "But do ye not after their works, for 
they say and do not. For [indeed] they bind heavy burdens 
and grievous [difficult] to be borne, and they lay them upon 
the shoulders of men, while they will not move them with one 
of their fingers" — [will not put forth the strength of a finger 
to move them.] 

In these words our Lord alludes to their exposition of the 
precepts of Moses, as he does afterwards, in several instances, 
in his direct address to them, verses 16 — 18, from which we 
infer he did not intend to enjoin implicit obedience to all their 
behests, or to hold them up as infallible interpreters of the 
law they had been commissioned to explain. The charge 
brought against them in this verse is an excess of power — an 
unauthorized imposition, to which they did not give even the 
sanction of their own example. Had they done so, it would 
have been in the nature of self-imposed penances, and could 
not have authorized them to impose them on others. The law, 
our Lord had himself on various occasions explained in several 
important particulars. See Matt. v. vi. vii. xv. xix. xxii. 
36 — 40 ; xxiii. 16—22. It cannot be supposed that he intended 
to sanction for any purpose, or to . any extent, or for any time, 
the gross perversions of the law which these teachers habitually 
and systematically made, and for that reason, if indeed our 
Lord referred at all to the moral parts of the law, the direc- 



296 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

tions given in the first clause of the third verse must be under- 
stood of the law rightly apprehended, and explained as he 
explained it. This limitation, however, would leave but little 
of their instructions for the people to observe and do, and 
hence we incline to the interpretation, that our Lord intended 
only the ritual or ceremonial parts of the law, the observance 
of which, by the Jewish nation, was to be permitted while the 
temple stood. In this sense, and to this extent, their com- 
mands might be observed without incurring taint from their 
false doctrines touching the weightier things of the law, judg- 
ment, mercy, and faith. See verse 23. 

Matt, xxiii. 5 — 7. "But all their works they do for to be 
seen of men. They make broad their phylacteries and enlarge 
the borders of their garments, and love the uppermost rooms 
at feasts, and the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings 
in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi." 

In these verses, our Lord describes the ruling passions of 
these teachers. They were ostentatious and vainglorious. 
They loved and sought for distinction in social intercourse, in 
their religious assemblies, and in other public places, and every- 
where to be recognized by all in their official relations. Had 
this been the worst that could be said of them they were unfit 
to be spiritual shepherds; and none who heard these words 
could fail to perceive how unworthy the Saviour deemed them 
of the distinctions they coveted. 

Matt, xxiii. 8. "But be not ye called Rabbi [my master]: 
for one is your Master, [the master of you all,] Christ." 

It should be remembered that our Lord did not, during his 
personal ministry, publicly assume or take to himself the title 
of Christ. This is evident from the fact, that when arraigned 
before the High Priest, he was questioned under a solemn 
adjuration whether he was the Christ or not. Matt. xxvi. 63; 
Mark xiv. 61 ; Luke xxii. 67 ; see John x. 24. So far from 
assuming the title, he solemnly charged his disciples to tell no 
man that he was the Christ. Matt. xvi. 20 ; see notes on that 
verse and on Matt. xi. 3. Nor did he assume it on this occa- 
sion. But what he said amounted to the assertion that Moses, 
in whose seat the Scribes and Pharisees sat, was no longer their 
master, nor they his disciples. Consequently, a new order of 
things had commenced, under one greater than Moses, Acts 
iii. 22; Deut. xviii. 15, 18, 19, whom they were bound to obey; 
and this, notwithstanding the permitted continuance of the 
Levitical ritual, and the qualified command he had just given 
them to obey, so long as Providence should permit, the precepts 
of those who sat in Moses' seat. The command he had given 
was indeed an assertion of authority which none but the Christ 



VAIN DISTINCTIONS PROHIBITED, 297 

could exercise. It was, in fact, an extension of the Levitical 
ritual ; and of the authority of those to whom the administra- 
tion of it had been committed. In this view the mere assump- 
tion of such authority, which none but the Christ could exercise, 
was virtually an assumption of the character of Christ. Still, 
our Lord employs the title without any direct or explicit appli- 
cation of it to himself, and it is evident that the chief priests 
and the rulers, who doubtless were informed of all that trans- 
pired on this occasion, did not regard it such an assumption of 
the office as would be a sufficient foundation for a public accu- 
sation. See Luke xxii. 67 ; Mark xiv. 61 ; Matt. xxvi. 63. 

Matt, xxiii. 8 — 11. "And all ye are brethren. And call 
no man father, for one is your Father which is in heaven [Iv 
rott; obpavotc,, omnipresent]. Neither be ye called masters ; for 
one is your master, Christ; and he that is greatest [literally, 
and the greatest of you] shall be your servant." 

Our Lord had before declared this law of his kingdom in a 
private conversation with the twelve apostles. See Matt. xx. 
24 — 27. Now he publicly declares it in the temple to the 
people and all his disciples. As a rule of conduct it was the 
reverse of their preconceived opinions of honour and greatness, 
as well as of the teachings and example of the Scribes and 
Pharisees. But the point most important to be noticed in this 
connection, is the bearing it has upon the undefined period 
of respite or grace which was still allotted to the nation. 
Although their temple and their ceremonial worship would 
be permitted for a time, and until God, in his providence, 
should otherwise direct, yet essentially a new order of things 
had come. The prophet whom Moses foretold had appeared, 
and him they were bound to obey. Acts iii. 22, 23; Deut. 
xviii. 15, 18, 19. The authority of Moses, the great lawgiver, 
and of the laws he had given the nation, had expired by their 
own limitation. Whatever of force or effect their institutions 
and laws could have thereafter, could come only from a re- 
enactment, by Christ, under such modifications as he should 
impose. 

In this consideration we perceive the ground of transition in 
our Lord's discourse. He had done with the priests and elders. 
He had put to silence the Herodians, Sadducees, Scribes, and 
Pharisees, and being now about to depart from the temple, which 
he had entered as his own house, he proclaims with authority, 
see Matt. vii. 29, to the crowd surrounding him and the whole 
company of his disciples, the great law by which thenceforth they 
were bound to live. "Be ye not called Rabbi, Leaders, Guides. 
Call no one on earth your father." Covet not — receive not 
vain distinctions from your fellows, nor comply with the exac- 
38 



298 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

tions of those who demand them. Ye are all brethren — equals 
before God. Sin has wrought the distinctions which hitherto 
men have established among themselves. Henceforth Christ is 
your only Monarch, and God the Father of all is your Father. 
In the kingdom of God the present order of things will be 
reversed. Your greatest honour and glory will be to serve 
each other. 

When we consider the occasion upon which these precepts 
were given, and the tone of authority with which they were 
pronounced, we cannot doubt that the Saviour intended to 
abrogate all existing and hitherto allowed usages under the 
Levitical economy, inconsistent with the kingdom he came to 
establish. The social state which would be produced by uni- 
versal and perfect obedience to these precepts, will, we doubt 
not, be realized when Israel shall be restored to their land and 
to the favour of God, and the new covenant written in their 
hearts, according to the prediction. Jer. xxxi. 31 — 34 ; Heb. 
viii. 8—11. 

That they were not observed by the nation at that time, nor 
have been in any of the ages since, is not an objection to this 
view of the passage. Our Lord foresaw that until the Spirit 
should be poured from on high, his will would be disregarded, 
not only by avowed enemies, but by many who professed to be 
his disciples and followers. It was none the less proper, how- 
ever, see Matt. v. 48, for him to proclaim the law of his king- 
dom, and to annex to it the sanction in the following verse : 

Matt, xxiii. 12. "And whosoever shall exalt himself 
shall be abased, and he that shall humble himself shall be 
exalted." 

We do not regard these words as merely predictive, as we 
may in Luke xiv. 11 ; xviii. 14, but as the expression of the 
Saviour's will or purpose. They are words of legislation, and 
strictly and properly a legislative sanction, in the technical 
sense. It has been observed that " human legislators have 
for the most part chosen to make the sanction of their laws 
rather vindicatory than remuneratory, or to consist rather in 
punishments than in actual particular rewards." This sanction 
comprises both these qualities. It is aimed directly at the root 
of the evil — a remarkable characteristic, which can seldom be 
attained in human legislation, owing to the imperfection of the 
executive or administrative power of the State. Observe, obe- 
dience to these precepts is the appointed way to secure the 
very end which the disobedience of them aims to attain. Self- 
exaltation is a breach of this fundamental law of the kingdom. 
Its appointed punishment is degradation, and abasement by the 
power of Christ the King. Self-humiliation is the indispensable 



THE AMBITIOUS TO BE HUMBLED, THE LOWLY EXALTED. 299 

qualification for the service of Christ. It is a grace which 
God alone can give, and the greater the humiliation the greater 
the gift of grace, and the greater the qualification for exalted 
service. To the carnal mind, such a law is a paradox, being 
founded upon conditions repugnant to the innate principles 
of human nature as it now is, and therefore impossible to 
unrenewed men. Indeed, it is one of the mysteries of the 
kingdom of God. 

It has been remarked that these precepts, abating the penal 
portion of the sanction, are substantially the same as our Lord 
gave to the twelve apostles on a former occasion. See Matt. 
xx. 25 — 27, and notes. It should now be added, that the 
sanction is to be accounted for by the difference of the appli- 
cation. It is, indeed, the same law of the same kingdom, but 
addressed to different orders or ranks, or conditions of the 
subjects of that kingdom. On the former occasion, our Lord 
addressed the apostles as the representatives of the whole body 
of the elect, whom he will receive to himself at his coming, and 
exalt to thrones, as kings and priests under him. Their sphere 
of service will be the world of glory, and their perfect obedi- 
ence made sure by their union to him. No penal sanction, 
therefore, could be necessary, in respect to this body of the 
redeemed. But in the repetition of this law to the multitudes, 
and his other disciples, he had respect to men in the flesh, dwell- 
ing on the earth — to Israel as a nation whom he purposed yet 
to spare for a little space — to his Church on earth, consisting, 
as he foresaw it would consist, of a mixed multitude ; the best 
portion of which, during this dispensation, would be imperfect. 
He had respect, also, as we suppose, to the. millennial state of 
the world, when Israel will be restored as a people, and all of 
them made righteous, and the Gentiles converted to God. 
Thus applied, the sanctionary clause was appropriate. Indeed 
we may consider the enactment, in this application of it, as 
supplementary to the two great commandments of the law, 
which he had just before declared, in answer to the question of 
the lawyer. See Matt. xxii. 37, 40, and notes. 

We may discern here another link in the chain of thought, 
which pervades the whole of this last public discourse of our 
Lord. In commenting upon his question to the Pharisees, con- 
cerning the Christ, Matt. xxii. 41 — 45, it was suggested that 
he claimed for himself the same love, honour, and obedience as 
are due to God the Father. In these verses he explicitly de- 
clares that while God the Father is Father of all, Christ, the 
Son of Man, is the Master or Monarch of all. See notes on 
Matt ix. 6, and xii. 8. He assumes authority over the laws 
and institutions established by the hand of Moses; and as the 



300 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

only lawgiver and mediator between God and men, on the one 
hand continues by his own authority, for the time being, the 
ceremonial parts of their worship ; and on the other, promul- 
gates new precepts designed to effect an entire change of their 
exterior life, and bring it into conformity with the two great 
commandments of the law affecting their inner life. Taken 
together, they form the code of the laws of the kingdom of 
God, distinguished from all human codes alike by its brevity 
and perfectness. It is the outward realization of these laws, 
through the hearty and perfect obedience of all, which the 
Saviour taught us to pray for in the prayer he indited for the 
apostles — "Thy kingdom come; thy will be done on earth as it 
is in heaven" — and it is from their actual realization we can 
most easily form an idea of the social state of men on earth, 
when that kingdom shall be outwardly established under the 
reign of Christ, the second Adam, the Lord from heaven. 



CHAPTER VIII. 

Christ a sign to the Jews. — The woe to the Scribes and Pharisees. — The Scribes 
and Pharisees. — The Apostrophe to Jerusalem. — Jerusalem and Judea to be 
desolated. — The Question of the Disciples about the Temple. — Their Question 
respecting his Coming. — The meaning of the End of the Age. — False Christs 
were to arise. — The Gospel to be preached to all. — Jerusalem's respite. — Jeru- 
salem's desolation. — The Distress of the Nations. — The Advent of the Son of 
Man. — The Judgment of the Nations. — Christ's Kingdom. 

Matthew xxiii. 13 — 36. Our Lord's purpose in this address 
to the Scribes and Pharisees, it is probable, was twofold: to 
warn the Scribes and Pharisees themselves of their perilous 
condition, and to portray in the hearing of the people, the true 
character of those whose authority, as the occupiers of the seat 
of Moses, he had just before recognized and prolonged. The 
latter, however, we may regard as the chief purpose ; for he had 
already in a less public manner said to the Scribes and Phari- 
sees nearly the same things. Luke xi. 37 — 54. On that occa- 
sion his language provoked a vehement attack upon him, which 
he did not see proper to prevent. But now he allowed no gain- 
saying. Matt. xxii. 46. He stood in his own temple. They 
were his last words of warning to them and to the people, and 
fell upon their minds with amazing power. We cannot err in 
believing that no words were ever uttered by man with so much 
majesty and awe-striking effect. 

But why, it may be inquired, did our Lord recognize and 
prolong the authority of such teachers, for any purpose, even 



CHRIST A SIGN TO THE JEWS. 301 

for a moment ? They were dissemblers, per.verters rather than 
faithful expounders of the law, blind guides, filled with hypoc- 
risy and iniquity, children of hell, verse 15, from which they 
could not escape but by miracles of grace, verse 33. This 
question touches a grave difficulty, the solution of which is to 
be sought for, as we conceive, in the mysteries of Providence, 
or more precisely, in the scheme of the Divine administration 
towards Israel as the elect people. Secularized and corrupt as 
the nation had become, and especially its rulers and teachers, 
it was God's purpose to make a still further trial of it under 
the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. This our Lord obscurely 
intimated in his reply to the Pharisees and Sadducees, when 
they desired him to show them a sign from heaven. See notes 
on Matt. xii. 38, and xvi. 1 — 4. On another occasion he made 
the same intimation more publicly, as we learn from Luke 
xi. 29, 30, to which, as in some respects more explicit, we will 
turn. It may be paraphrased thus : " This is an evil genera- 
tion" — a wicked race — "they seek a sign, and there shall no 
sign be given to it" — more than they already have in my mira- 
culous works — "but the sign of Jonas the prophet. For as 
Jonas" (after being preserved three days and three nights in 
the body of the fish, and his wonderful deliverance therefrom) 
"was a sign unto the Ninevites," during forty days, Jonah 
i. 17; iii. 4, "so shall the Son of Man" (after being preserved 
three days and three nights in the grave, and his wonderful 
deliverance therefrom) "be a sign," during forty years, unto 
this generation.* 

The personal history of Jonah considered as a type of our 
Lord's burial in the grave of Joseph, begins to be applicable 
at his resurrection. The deliverance of Jonah, which we doubt 
not was well known to the Ninevites, stamped his mission with 
Divine authority, and the deliverance of our Lord's body from 
the power of death and the grave, represented by the preser- 
vation of Jonah, was that further sign, which he foretold they 
should have. This sign or further proof, the apostles preached 
with great power, Acts i. 22 ; ii. 31 ; iv. 33 ; vii. 56, to that peo- 
ple during nearly forty years — God confirming their testimony 
by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the mighty works 
they performed. Thus considered, this was the greatest of the 
signs given to the nation. It was a permanent or continuing 

* The forty days' respite in the case of Nineveh, Jonah iii. 4, it is supposed, 
typically or mystically represented the years of respite "which were to be 
allowed to Jerusalem after our Lord's resurrection, orperhaps we should say 
after the commencement of our Lord's public ministry; inasmuch as the forty 
days, in the case of Nineveh, commenced with the beginning of Jonah's 
preaching. 



302 NOTES ON SCMPTUKE. 

sign, during the remainder of their national existence, and in 
this respect differed from the miracles which our Lord had 
previously performed. 

However this may be, the event shows that God intended to 
spare the nation, such, as it was, and its teachers and rulers, 
depraved and wicked as they were, a little longer ; peradven- 
ture they would yet repent, when they should have the further 
sign of the resurrection of Jesus proved to them by evidence 
which they could not doubt, and preached to them and con- 
firmed by signs and wonders wrought by the apostles. It was 
in the execution of this purpose, as we suppose, our Lord 
recognized and prolonged the authority of the Scribes and 
Pharisees, not for any good thing he saw either in the nation 
or in its teachers or rulers. We add a few observations upon 
some of these verses. 

Matt, xxiii. 13. "But woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites ! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men ; 
for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are 
entering to go in." 

This was the characteristic sin of the Scribes and Pharisees. 
They lived in times the like of which had never been before. 
The kingdom of God had been brought nigh. Matt xi. 13. See 
notes, and Luke xvi. 16. Their privileges and responsibilities 
were greater than those of their predecessors. Matt. xiii. IT ; 
Luke x. 24. It was for this reason, we suppose, our Lord 
began his enumeration of their enormous sins with this. Not 
content with resisting for themselves the most conclusive evi- 
dence of the Divine authority of John the Baptist's mission, 
and of his own, they were unceasingly malicious and persever- 
ingly active in perverting it. They took away the key of 
(or rather say to) knowledge from the people, Luke xi. 52, thus 
closing or barring up the door, as far as it was in their power, 
to all who otherwise might have been inclined to enter the 
kingdom. See Matt. xi. 18, 19; xii. 24; Luke vii. 29, 30, 33, 
34; also, John vii. 20; viii. 48, 49, 52; x. 20. 

Matt, xxiii. 14. "But woe to you, Scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites ! for ye \_xazeadcere greedily eat up] devour widows' 
houses, and for \jtpo(paaec a show or pretext to cover up your 
real intent] a pretence [pray long,] make long prayer ; there- 
fore [oca touto on account of this pretext,] ye shall receive 
[more abundant, severer] greater [condemnation] damnation." 

Avarice, which did not spare the poor and unprotected — 
merciless avarice, was another of their enormous sins. Prac- 
tised, as it was by them, under pretence of religion, and cov- 
ered up by hypocritical prayers, it may be regarded as a kind 
of form of that vice which was peculiar to their caste or class, 



THE WOE TO THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 303 

as spiritual guides. It was their character and office which 
gave them access to their victims. The apostle Paul warned 
Timothy, 1 Tim. vi. 5, against some in the church, even in his 
day, who regarded religion as a thing valuable only so far as it 
might be made subservient to lucre, see 2 Peter ii. 1, and the 
history of the Church, in all ages since, shows an uninterrupted 
succession of such teachers from the Scribes and Pharisees, 
whom the Lord thus severely condemned. . 

Matt, xxiii. 15 — 31. These verses cannot be made plainer 
by any comment. 

They show how zealous these men were in propagating their 
(so called) religious scheme of doctrines, supported by the most 
absurd interpretations of the Scriptures, and how little influ- 
ence their religious opinions had upon their moral and religious 
character. Punctilious as they were in the observation of 
small things, and imposing and beautiful as their exterior life 
appeared, they were, within, like sepulchres, full of rottenness 
and all uncleanness. Under pretext of being more holy than 
their fathers, and vainly disavowing their deeds, they were 
treading closely in their footsteps; and were at that moment 
meditating the commission of the most heaven-daring of the 
nation's crimes. Well knowing their character and their pur- 
poses, the Lord added: 

Matt, xxiii. 32. "Fill ye up then the measure of your 
fathers." Fill ye up, then, to the full, the measure of the 
Divine forbearance towards your nation, which your fathers, in 
all their generations, have been filling. 

This verse is to be regarded as permissive and predictive, not 
as an exhortation or command. As if the Saviour had said: 
" Seeing you are inflexibly bent upon putting me to death, and 
thus putting an end to your own existence as a nation, by the 
most atrocious of your sins, God will permit you to have your 
own way. But how, then, will it be possible for you to escape 
the severest punishment?" 

The permission thus given to the Scribes and Pharisees, and* 
through them to the nation itself, was indispensable to the 
accomplishment of their purpose of putting him to death. No 
one, not the whole nation, not Satan himself, nor all together, 
had power to take the life of the Lord against his will, or 
without his permission. John x. 18. The time, the place, and 
the occasion, concur to show that these words should be under- 
stood in this sense. They may remind us of the like permission 
soon afterwards given to Satan, as soon as he had taken corpo- 
real possession of Judas Iscariot. John. xiii. '27. 

Matt, xxiii. 33. "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, 
how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" 



304 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

The Saviour does not positively affirm that hell was their 
destination, and damnation their doom: for with God all things 
are possible ; but, considered as a question, what other answer 
could they return to it? Yet, notwithstanding their extreme 
wickedness, they were to be spared, and borne with a little 
longer, and still further trial given them, as we have seen, in 
order that they might repent and believe, or display more fully 
their character, and the justice of God in their punishment. 
See Rom. ix. 17. The event of this further trial the Saviour 
foresaw and foretold, for the warning of such as would give 
heed to it. 

Matt, xxiii. 34 — 36. " Wherefore, [referring to what he 
had said in verses 32, 33] behold, I send you [meaning, I 
will send you, after my resurrection] prophets, and wise men, 
and scribes, and some of them ye shall [will] kill and crucify, 
and some of them shall ye [ye will] scourge in your synagogues, 
and persecute from city to city; that upon you may come all 
the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of 
righteous Abel to the blood of Zacharias, the son of Barachias, 
whom ye slew between the temple and the altar. Verily, I say 
unto you, All these things shall [will] come upon this gen- 
eration." 

These words, as already intimated, were a prediction of the 
issue of the trial of the nation, under the dispensation of the 
Holy Spirit. As that dispensation was still future, the official 
titles or names afterwards given to those by whose agency it 
was carried on, would not have been understood, if the Saviour 
had employed them. Hence he adopted from the synagogue, 
those most analogous to the prospective institutions of the 
Gospel, as best adapted to convey his meaning ; intending by 
"prophets, wise men, and scribes," the apostles and other min- 
isters of the word, whom he soon after sent forth to preach the 
gospel to the nation; who laboured in the midst of them, till 
Jerusalem was destroyed, and the people dispersed by the 
Romans. The cruel treatment which he foretold they would 
receive, he had before predicted in the parable of the marriage, 
Matt. xxii. 6; see xxiv. 9; John xv. 20; xvi. 2, and Paul 
refers to it as an historical fact in his first Epistle to the Thes- 
saloniaus, ii. 14 — 17, written, it is supposed, about nineteen 
years after this time. And if minute accounts of the persecu- 
tions of Christians during this last period of the Jewish State 
had been transmitted to us, we doubt not they would most 
abundantly verify this prediction of the Saviour in all its par- 
ticulars. See notes on Matt. xii. 43 — 45. 

But what is especially noticeable in this last denunciation is, 
that our Lord regards the Scribes and Pharisees both as indi- 



THE SCRIBES AND PHARISEES. 305 

viduals and as the representatives of the nation from its origin. 
Being the elect nation under the covenant, the people were dealt 
with as a corporate person, identically one and the same in all 
their generations. In this character and capacity, the privileges 
of the kingdom had been covenanted to the nation, and when for- 
feited, they were taken away from it as such. Upon the same 
principle, the guilt which former generations had incurred and 
accumulated was to be charged to the account of the last. The 
punishment which the Divine justice inflicted for the nation's 
sins thus considered, besides the national loss of the covenanted 
blessings, was the utter ruin of their commonwealth, and the 
subjection of the people to the power of the Gentiles: in other 
words, temporal judgments; which only, the nation as such could 
suffer. But these included particular inflictions upon the peo- 
ple individually, more or less intense respectively, according to 
their ill-desert. This no doubt was very various, yet in none 
so great, that the punishment due to it could not be averted by 
repentance towards God and faith in their rejected Messiah. 
Many of the priests, as we learn from the Acts of the Apostles, 
vi. 7, though they had been zealous and active enemies of Jesus, 
during his public ministry, afterwards became obedient to the 
faith; and the Pharisee, Saul of Tarsus, though he took an 
active part in fulfilling the prophecy, Acts vii. 58; viii. 1; 
xxvi. 10, 11 ; 1 Tim. i. 15, 16, is another example of the Divine 
clemency. That there was among this corrupt people an elec- 
tion of grace is proved by many places, Rom. xi. 4, 5 ; Acts 
xxi. 20, and it was no doubt in part for the sake of gathering 
these that the days of vengeance were postponed. See 2 Pet. 
iii. 9. But to return to the principal point of this passage. 

Our Lord charged the nation not only with the blood of their 
own prophets, but with the guilt of all the righteous blood shed 
upon the earth from the blood of righteous Abel. In what 
sense, it may be inquired, could the nation be charged with 
crimes which neither they nor their fathers, from the time they 
were chosen as the elect nation, had committed? Mr. Alford 
remarks, "that the murder of Abel was the first in the strife 
between unrighteousness and holiness; and as the Jews now 
represent the murderers of the first, they must bear the ven- 
geance of the whole in God's day of wrath." Without contro- 
verting the views of learned men upon obscure questions, the 
writer may be allowed to suggest, that the ground or cause of 
the nation's guilt for crimes committed from the beginning of 
the world, is to be sought for, in their relation, as a people, to 
the scheme of redemption. In God's purpose, the day of final 
retribution for the sins of the world, for the removal of the 
curse and the restitution of all things, is inseparably connected 



306 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

with the advent and kingdom of Christ; and the time had now 
come for the accomplishment of these events. Nothing was 
wanting on the part of God, and nothing was required of that 
generation, hut the hearty reception of the Lord Jesus, as their 
Messiah, with the obedience of faith. By rejecting him, they 
postponed, so to speak, the execution of the Divine plan. In 
other words, instrumentally they prolonged the curse, and put 
off the day of God's righteous retribution of all the sins com- 
mitted since the fall, and consequently were themselves respon- 
sible as a nation, for the guilt of sins which, but for them, would 
at that time have been avenged: for as a nation, they were a 
party to the covenant at Horeb, and as subjects of the law, 
which was declaratory of the conditions to be fulfilled by the 
people on their part, they were bound by its terms, and respon- 
sible for all the consequences of the breach thereof, one of 
which was, as we have setn, the postponement of the day of 
retribution. This reasoning is analogous to that employed in 
the notes on Matt. ii. 17, 18, and Jer. xxxi. 15, to which the 
reader is referred. 

It cannot be necessary to add, that the actual issues or 
events of God's covenant with Israel were foreseen. Acts xv. 
19. They were not only foreseen, but actually provided for 
in the scheme of redemption, which included all possible issues 
of each and every of its subordinate parts. 

Having now done with the Scribes and Pharisees, our Lord 
closed his public ministry by an address to the nation. To 
enter at all into his conceptions the reader must consider with 
profound attention the time, the place, the occasion, the people 
addressed, their history, their relations to God by covenant, 
the consequences of their sinful rejection of the Lord Jesus to 
themselves as a nation and a race, and to the world. We call 
it an apostrophe, and such it is. But so vast are the thoughts 
it expresses, so deep the emotions which prompted them, so 
comprehensive the appeal, and in all these respects, so far 
above the conceptions of the actual audience, that we may with 
equal propriety regard it as a Divine soliloquy, or the Lord's 
declaration to himself of his own faithfulness to his covenant 
engagements, and of his reason for withdrawing the special 
care and providence he had hitherto extended to the nation. 
Let us attend to some of the particulars. 

Matt, xxiii. 37. "0 Jerusalem, Jerusalem." 

Many great and glorious purposes are connected with Jeru- 
salem. The Saviour himself called it the city of the great 
King, Matt. v. 35 ; see Ps. xlviii. 2. God himself had chosen 
it, 1 Kings xi. 13, and resolved to establish it, 1 Kings xv. 4, 
and will dwell in the midst of it, Zechariah viii. 3, and 



THE APOSTROPHE TO JERUSALEM. 307 

make it a rejoicing, and a joy to the whole earth, Isaiah 
lxv. 18, 19. This purpose he will never abandon or change, 
Zechariah i. 17; ii. 12. That a city of such exalted privi- 
leges, and so glorious a destiny, should madly cast them all 
away, or even momentarily disregard them, was a matter of 
profound astonishment and grief. This is intimated by the repe- 
tition. It is more to our purpose, however, to observe, that 
under this name, the Saviour summons the whole nation, in all 
its generations, living and dead, before him, to hear these, his 
last words, as if he had said : " my people, my people — my 
people by choice and covenant — how often would I have gath- 
ered you," &c. 

Matt, xxiii. 37. "That killest the prophets and stonest 
them that are sent unto thee." See Isa. iv. 4; Luke xiii. 
33, 34. 

Plainly, our Lord refers, by these words, to former genera- 
tions of the nation, and his dealings with them, from the 
beginning ; not merely to events which had occurred during his 
advent and appearing in the flesh. We know not that any pro- 
phet had been killed during our Lord's personal ministry except 
John the Baptist, whom Herod killed. But what is especially 
noticeable is, that our Lord characterizes this highly favoured 
city only by its heaven-daring crimes. The prophets were 
God's ambassadors. But had they been only the ambassadors 
of an earthly king, they should have been received with honour, 
and their persons regarded as sacred. 

An earthly king would have avenged, to the extent of his 
power, the dishonour done him by such flagrant wrongs done 
to his servants ; but God had not only forborne to exterminate 
the nation, for repeated offences, but even preserved and pro- 
tected it until at length he sent his Son, saying, according 
to the representation of the parable : " They will reverence 
my Son." Matt. xxi. 37, and notes. Thus our Lord enhances 
the effect of the appeal, by contrasting the goodness and for- 
bearance of God with the ingratitude and crimes of the nation. 

Matt, xxiii. 37. "How often would I have gathered thy 
children together even as a hen [bird] gathereth her chickens 
[nestlings,] under her wings, and ye would not." 

Our Lord spoke these words in the majesty of his pre- 
existent nature, 1 Cor. x. 9. They imply that he had ever 
been with the nation, and watchful over it, and ever ready to 
gather its scattered and oppressed children from under the 
power of their enemies, and foster and protect them with the 
most tender and affectionate care. See Ps. lxxxi. 13 — 16. 
How strangely these words must have sounded in the ears of 
the Scribes and Pharisees, who regarded him merely as a 



308 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

mortal man, like themselves. See John viii. 58, 59, and 56, 57. 
In uttering them he had no special regard to his audience, but 
rather to his own greatness and glory, and the Divine scheme 
into which the election of Israel entered and formed an im- 
portant .part. The temporary failure, or perhaps we should 
say, the postponement, of the glorious consummation of this 
scheme, was not his fault, but theirs. They would not be 
gathered and blest by him. They had reached the outermost 
limits of the Divine forbearance, and would soon pass beyond 
them. With prophetic words, he therefore adds the sentence 
of the divine judgment for their national sins : 

Matt, xxiii. 38. " Behold, your house is left unto you 
desolate." 

As if he had said: "Behold, the land which God covenanted 
to your fathers, to be your dwelling-place in all your genera- 
tions, is abandoned of God. His special care and providence 
over it are withdrawn. It is left to yourselves to keep and 
protect as best you can. Soon it will be desolate. 

The strength of the nation never consisted in its numbers. 
Moses taught the people, Deut. vii. 7, that the Lord did not 
choose them because they were more in number than any peo- 
ple; for they were the fewest of all people. Ps. cv. 12. Their 
strength and safety lay in the covenanted care and the special 
providence of God, as their whole history abundantly proves, 
Deut. iii. 22; xx. 4; xxxii. 30; Exod. xiv. 14; Lev. xxvi. 8; 
Josh, xxiii. 10; Ps. xxxv. 1; xliv. 4, 5, and that care and provi- 
dence had been extended to them, during all their diversified 
fortunes, until this time. He was their King; and although in 
the days of Samuel they demanded another king to rule them, 
like all the nations, 1 Sam. viii. 5, 9, yet he continued his 
theocratical rule over them through the kings he gave them, 
and even covenanted with David that his own Anointed should 
descend from his loins. Acts ii. 30; Ps. cxxxii. 11. By the 
words we are now considering, the Theocracy was virtually, 
and even formally, withdrawn. The consequences of this 
change in their relations were foreshadowed by the word "deso- 
late," but plainly declared, soon afterwards, to four of the 
disciples, in his prophetical discourse upon the Mount of 
Olives. 

Matt, xxiii. 39. "For I say unto you, ye shall not see me 
henceforth till ye say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name 
of the Lord." 

We regard this verse as a part of the apostrophe to the 
nation, as before explained, not as addressed especially to the 
auditory actually present in the temple. They import the 
excision of the nation from the high privileges of the covenant 



RETURN OF THE DIVINE FAVOUR. 309 

they had forfeited ; yet without extinguishing the hope of the 
inferior blessings of an earthly pre-eminence among the nations 
in the world Jo come under Messiah's reign. See notes on Matt. 
xxi. 43, 44. But to come to particulars. 

Our Lord connects the desolation he had just before spoken 
of, "with his withdrawal from the nation as their Messiah and 
covenanted King. They imply, that he will not appear to 
them again to be rejected ; that is to say, his withdrawal from 
the nation, and the consequent desolation of their land, shall 
continue as long as their unbelief and disobedience. They 
imply also that when their unbelief and disobedience as a 
nation shall cease, and their hearts be prepared to receive him, 
then he will appear to them again; extend his care and pro- 
tection to them, and repair their desolations. If we now turn 
to Acts xv. 16, we shall find, not the times and seasons, but the 
event upon which the return of the Divine favour is made to 
depend. It will be when the visitation of the Gentiles is over, 
and God has taken out of them a people for his name — in 
other words, it will be after the closing of the present dispensa- 
tion of the Gospel among all nations. But then will that king- 
dom of priests, covenanted to Israel at Horeb, into which both 
Jews and Gentiles may now enter, be completely formed, and 
nothing will remain for Israel according to the flesh, but the 
glories of the earthly kingdom which their fathers coveted. 
We add, it is plain from other Scriptures, see Heb. ix. 28; 
Zech. xii., that the Lord will never again appear to any gene- 
ration of the nation in the humble garb of human flesh, but 
only in his glory as the Son of Man for the judging and ruling 
of all the kindreds and nations of the earth. Matt. xxv. 31. 
Of this event, restored Israel may have a sign which will not 
be given to other nations. Matt. iv. 5, 6. 

Matt. xxiv. 1. "And Jesus went out, and departed from 
the temple [and Jesus, coming out of the temple, was going 
away from it,] and his disciples came to him for to show him 
the buildings of the temple," [when his disciples came up to 
point out to him its structures and magnificence. Mark xiii. 1; 
Luke xxi. 5.] 

The disciples were Galileans, and probably much less familiar 
with the temple than the inhabitants of Jerusalem. On this 
account, perhaps, they were more sensibly struck with its 
beauty and grandeur. Thinking that their Master would share 
in their admiration, they desired to detain him while they 
could survey it together. But whatever may have been the 
motives of the disciples, the fact shows how little they under- 
stood our Lord's nature. As in their previous intercourse with 
him, they seem to have regarded him on this occasion also, as 



310 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

a man, like themselves, in all the essentials of his nature, not 
as one to whom all the glories of the universe were familiarly 
known. But the special design of this verse is, a| we suppose, 
to introduce our Lord's reply. 

Matt. xxiv. 2. "And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all 
these things? [are ye looking at these things?] Verily, I 
say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon 
another, that shall not be thrown down." — "The days will 
come in which there shall not be left one stone upon another 
that shall not be thrown down." Luke xxi. 6. 

We are not informed that the Saviour halted, as the disciples 
evidently desired he should; but we may suppose at least that 
he momentarily turned, and extending his hands towards the 
temple, as if to demonstrate the meaning of his words, pro- 
nounced the startling prediction in the text. It was new. to 
them ; he had given no intimation of the kind before in public, 
or even in his private intercourse with them. Yet they 
believed it. Their confidence in him was implicit, as the next 
verse shows. But how, by what means, and when? They 
presumed not to ask him. The prediction, they well knew, 
would be regarded as criminal, not to say blasphemous, by 
their countrymen. Acts vi. 13, 14; Matt. xxvi. 61; xxvii. 40; 
Mark xiv. 58. If it were generally known, it would expose 
their Master to great personal danger. It was, therefore, a 
matter not to be much spoken of, even among themselves, and 
never except in the most confidential way. With such im- 
pressions, they pursued their accustomed way from the temple 
to the Mount of Olives, in silence, as the Evangelists allow us 
to suppose. But afterwards, 

Matt. xxiv. 3. "As he sat upon the Mount of Olives, the 
disciples [four of the disciples, Peter, James, John, and 
Andrew — Mark xiii. 3,] came unto him privately saying, Tell 
us [confidentially] when shall these things be? and what the 
sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?" [o.uovo<;.~\ 

The fact that only four of the disciples, so far as we know, 
ventured to broach the subject of this prediction to the Saviour, 
and then only in a private or confidential way, shows that for 
some reason, if not that before suggested, the disciples thought 
it improper to question him publicly about the prediction, or 
even before the whole company of the disciples. But waiving 
further observations on this point, we proceed to the particulars 
upon which these disciples desired information. To ascertain 
these, we must determine the sense in which they themselves 
understood, and put their questions ; and it is important to do 
so. Our Lord knew their meaning, and it is reasonable to 
suppose, he responded to it, so far as the information called for 



THE DISCIPLES' INQUIRIES OE CHRIST. 311 

was proper to be given. 4 If this assumption be allowed, the 
sense in which the questions were understood by the disciples 
may guide us to some extent in the interpretation of our Lord's 
answer; but not throughout; for nothing can be plainer than 
that the disciples entertained very imperfect views of the great 
events which they inquired about. 

Most readers of the New Testament, and perhaps most com- 
mentators, take it for granted, that the disciples put these 
questions in the sense in which they are now generally under- 
stood; but this assumption requires investigation, as will 
appear, if we consider them separately. 

The first question, "When shall these things be?" relates 
particularly, and we doubt not exclusively, to the destruction 
of the temple foretold, in general terms, in the preceding (2d) 
verse. If we turn to Luke xxi. 5, 7, we find no other ante- 
cedent to which "these things" can be referred. The stress of 
this question lies upon the time: " When shall the temple be 
destroyed — when shall it be so entirely demolished that not 
one stone of it shall be left upon another?" According to 
Mark and Luke, this was the only event upon which they 
asked for further information. " When shall these things 
be, and what the sign when these things shall come to pass — 
be fulfilled." 

The second question relates to the Lord's appearing, and 
particularly to the sign of it: "What the sign (r^c ^C 
napooatao) of thy coming?" The disciples had been with him 
in the temple, Matt, xxiii. 1, and it is probable had left it with 
him. They had heard his parting words: "Ye shall not see 
me henceforth till ye say, Blessed is he that cometh in the 
name of the Lord." Ps. cxviii. 26. This declaration implied 
that his ministry at Jerusalem was ended, and that he was 
about to withdraw from the city, and remain absent from it, at 
least for a time, the length of which would depend upon the 
disposition of the people towards him. But it contained no 
intimation of the place he was about to retire to, nor of any 
sign or token of his return, after the people should be willing 
to receive him. On these points, or such as these, the disciples 
desired him to speak ; but their own conceptions of them, we 
are justified by other passages in saying, were very imperfect. 
We must not suppose the disciples had in their mind the Lord's 
appearance from heaven in glory and power, or that they 
intended to inquire about such an appearance. They did not 
at that time even know whither he was going ; but wherever it 
might be, it is probable they expected to accompany him, and 
remain with, and return with him. This is evident from John 
xiii. 36, 37; xiv. 5; xvi. 17, 18, 28, 29. They had no con- 



312 NOTES ON SCRIPTUKE. 

ception or thought of his going out of the world, nor of the 
means by which his exit from the world would be accomplished. 
John xx. 9 ; Luke xviii. 34 ; xxiv. 21. We must therefore 
understand the word (napouoca^) translated coming, in its pri- 
mary signification, of being present,* in his proper person, as in 
2 Cor. vii. 6, 7, where Paul speaks of the coming (napouoca) of 
Titus. See 1 Cor. xvi. 17; 2 Cor. x. 10; Philip, i. 26; ii. 12, 
where it is used as the contrasting word to dnooaca, being 
absent. His being present again after a period of absence 
implied his return from some place of which they were igno- 
rant; and nothing more is involved in the question, or can be 
intended, when we consider how little the disciples at that time 
knew of the future. Nor did these disciples comprehend the 
answer of our Lord to their questions, at least in some of its 
most important particulars, until they received the inspiration 
of the Holy Spirit. This will appear if we consider that Peter, 
who was one of them, two days afterwards did not know why 
he could not then follow his Master to the place whither he was 
going. John xiii. 36, 37; xiv. 5; xvi. 17, 18, 28, 29. 

Their third question respected the ending [too o.hovo^) of the 
world. It is not improbable that many readers mistake the 
meaning of the disciples in this inquiry. It is reasonable to 
suppose, that with the rest of their countrymen, they believed 
that the Levitical economy which they then enjoyed, would 
terminate and merge in the kingdom of the Messiah; and as 
they fully believed that he was the Messiah, and had confessed 
him as such, Matt. xvi. 16, 17, they naturally connected his 
return and the establishment of his kingdom, not only with the 
ending of the (aicov) economy under which they then lived, but 
with a new one, far more happy and glorious. Acts i. 6. We 
need not inquire what changes they supposed would be wrought 
in the transition. They had heard out of the law, that the 
Christ, when he should take possession of his throne and king- 
dom, would abide for ever, John xii. 34 ; that his kingdom was 
an everlasting kingdom, that shall not pass away or be de- 
stroyed; that it should be universal and exceedingly glorious. 

* The word 7r*pov<ria is several times used in the Epistles to signify our 
Lord's appearance from heaven; 1 Cor. xv. 23; 1 Thess. ii. 19; iii. 13; iv. 15; 
v. 23; 2 Thess. ii. 1, 8; James v. 7, 8; 2 Pet. i. 16; iii. 4; 1 John ii. 28, and 
■when so used it is synonymous with i7ri<p&vuct and a.7rox.*.Kv-\u;, or nearly so, but 
this use of the word in all these places is founded upon that which our Lord 
makes of it in Matt. xxiv. 27, 37, 39, in his reply to these questions of the 
disciples, and is altogether different from that in which the disciples here use 
the word. It is noticeable that neither Mark nor Luke uses this word in 
recording our Lord's reply; nor do any of the Evangelists employ it in any 
connection, except Matthew, and he in this chapter only — verses 3, 27, 37, 
and 39. 



THE MEANING OF THE DISCIPLES' INQUIRIES. 313 

Ps. lxxii. 8; Dan. vii. 14. So great a change necessarily 
involved the termination of the present (at cm) order of things 
(seculorum ordo,) and hence the disciples naturally connected 
the end of the world (auvreXeta tod atcovoq) with the return of 
their Master to Jerusalem. It should be considered also, that 
the disciples had no conception of the events which were to 
occur between the destruction of the temple and the Lord's 
return, nor of the length of time between these events. Nor 
can we infer from anything our Lord had previously said, or 
from their knowledge of the Divine purposes, or their expecta- 
tions, that they understood the purpose for which the temple 
would be destroyed — whether it would be in judgment for the 
sins of the nation, or to replace it by another, more magnificent 
or more suitable to the glory of the expected kingdom. They 
took it for granted, also, that the Levitical economy would cor 
tinue until it should be superseded by Messiah's reign. Tb : 
evident from the form of their question, "What the sign 
coming and of the end of the (o.icov) world." One and 
sign, they supposed, would serve for both these e T 
they understood the Divine purpose to open a C 1 
the Gospel to the Gentiles, of long continuan 
events, it is natural to suppose they would 
order of their questions, and asked a si f 
"What will the sign of the consumma* 
pensation, and what the sign of thy r 
kingdom?" 

The words oovTzfata tod olcovoz, s 1 
or consummation of the age or d ; 
of the age. There is no re? 
intended to inquire about the 
acceptation of the phrase, or 
things. The great matter 
lishment of their Master' 
not be expected till b' 
supersede the existinr 
own. Hence they c<~ 
question, under th. 
concurrent occun 
in the Gospels- 
Heb. ix. 26, v 
order of thr 
event was r 
be ; yet in 
reaches to 
Messiah's 
truction 
d 



314 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

calling of the Elect Church out of the Gentiles, to be continued 
through many generations) thought the kingdom would be 
joined upon and immediately succeed the Levitical economy. 
Acts. i. 6. The Saviour knew the misconception, but left it 
for the Holy Spirit to correct; while he adapted his language 
to the course of events as he foresaw them. 

It is important to apprehend correctly the sense or meaning 
of the disciples in the inquiries they propounded to the Saviour. 
In a general sense, they constitute the subject of his reply, but 
owing to the imperfection of their knowledge, and their igno- 
rance and misconceptions of the Divine purposes, they are not 
to be regarded as arrangements adopted by our Lord in his 
prophetical reply, much less are we authorized to suppose that 
he limited his meaning to their conceptions of the events they 
inquired about. 

Matt. xxiv. 4, 5. "And Jesus answered and said to them, 

heed that no one deceive you: for many shall come in 

ie, saying, I am [the] Christ, and shall deceive many." 

'Xiion was suggested by the misapprehension of the 

the manner of his return. They thought of his 

" Jerusalem as he had gone before, and of his 

ad returned before. See notes on verse 2. 

> of this error, supposing it to continue, 

<*er of being led astray by false Christs, 

hat way. Hence he assures them in 

taring in the manner in which they 

-, would be a deceiver, especially if 

°,ter and title of Christ. He, the 

in appear in this way. But he 

to tell them how he should 

* events, by the ministry of 

by the teachings of the 

^uired, did the Saviour 

no one deceive you." 

r e suppose, especially 

\us addressed. It 

^le, as well those 

ho should. The 

* of Messiah's 

the nation at 

ince. This 

he apostles 

ving been 

necessary 

favoured. 



FALSE CHRISTS TO AEISE. 315 

No unbelieving Jew expects that the Messiah will appear in the 
clouds of heaven. This is a doctrine of Christianity which the 
Jews reject. The caution, therefore, we regard as a warning 
to Jews, especially designed to guard them against deceivers, 
who were to arise from time to time during the whole of their 
future history, and through this common error of the nation, 
mislead all who denied or would not regard the Divine mission 
and authority of the Lord Jesus. 

It is noticeable, too, that our Lord here expressly claims the 
name or title of Christ — "Many shall come in my name, say- 
ing, I am Christ" — thereby showing that the outward assump- 
tion of the title was another note or mark by which deceivers 
might be infallibly known. See notes on Matt xi. 3; xvi. 20. 
For the reader must remember, that hitherto he had not publicly 
assumed that character, John x. 24, and did not, until he was 
adjured by the High Priest to avow the character which he 
sustained. Matt. xxvi. 63 ; Mark xiv. 61 ; Luke xxii. 67, 68. 

Matt. xxiv. 6. "And ye shall hear of wars, and rumours of 
wars : see that ye be not troubled : for all these things must 
come to pass, but [to reXo^] the end is not yet." 

The special design of the prophecy of the appearing of false 
Christs was, as we have just said, to enforce a caution of the 
utmost importance, on account of the prevailing misapprehen- 
sion of the Jews relative to the manner in which the Messiah 
would come to establish his kingdom. As to his first coming, 
they were right in supposing that he would appear after the 
manner of men. Matt. ii. 5; John vii. 41, 27, 31 ; iv. 25. But 
having ignorantly rejected him as a false Christ, as a conse- 
quence of their error, they would be continually thereafter 
looking for another, who should come in the same way. 

Now he adds: "And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of 
wars." But these would not be proximate signs of the end 
about which they inquired. We have here an example of the 
double sense, and are able to show, with some probability, the 
ground or reason of it. The disciples, as we have seen, thought 
that the end of the Levitical economy and of the existing 
physical order or condition of things in the world would concur 
in point of time, and that both would be followed immediately 
by Messiah's kingdom, which they conceived would be exceed- 
ingly glorious. The Saviour's conception was very different. 
He knew that a long interval was laid, in the Divine purpose 
between the ending of the Levitical economy and his second 
coming — in other words, that the end of the Levitical economy 
would not mark or concur in point of time with the end of the 
existing physical order of things in the world, see notes on 
Acts iii. 21, although the existing physical order of things 



316 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

would be terminated by his coming in his kingdom. The dif- 
ferent senses of the word (re^oc) end therefore result from the 
different conceptions the disciples and the Saviour had of the 
things inquired about; and the language is adapted to both 
these senses. The wars and the rumours of wars which he fore- 
told would not be a proximate sign of the end either of the 
Jewish polity, or of that period which, in the Divine purpose, 
had been appointed to precede the actual coming of Messiah's 
kingdom. Acts iii. 21. 

A similar but more striking example of the double sense 
occurs in the 14th verse: "And this gospel of the kingdom 
shall be preached in all the world (plxoufjLzvrj) for a witness unto 
all nations, and then shall (to tsXoc;) the end come." The uni- 
versal promulgation of the Gospel for a witness, our Lord here 
declares, is the true sign of the end — that is, of the end in the 
sense in which the disciples put their question, and in the sense 
which, in the Saviour's mind, it really involved. The end of 
the Jewish state or polity, in fact, came when the Gospel had 
been preached throughout the (orxoujuewq) inhabited portions of 
the earth, as it was at that time. See Luke ii. 1; iv. 5; 
xxi,. 26; Acts xi. 28; xvii. 6, 31; xix. 27; xxiv. 5; Rom. 
x. 18; Heb. i. 6; ii. 5; Rev. iii. 10; xii. 9; xvi. 14; for the 
use of the word oixou/isvy, see also Rom. i. 8. The answer, 
thus understood, fully met the question in the sense it was put 
by the disciples. They were, in fact, incapable at that time 
of understanding it in any other sense, owing to their ignorance 
of the Divine purposes in regard to the calling of the Gentiles. 
Acts x. 34, 35. Departing, however, from the destruction of 
the Jewish state as an epoch, and stretching through the then 
mysterious and undefined period of mercy allotted to the Gen- 
tiles ; the end of the present physical order of things and the 
epoch of Messiah's kingdom will come, when this Gospel 
shall have been preached, as it were, a second time, throughout 
a much more extended (ocxoujuevy) area than that then occupied 
by the nations. This sense is involved in the prophecy of the 
third mission of the servants in the parable of the marriage. 
Matt, xxiii. 9; see notes. 

The words (zsfot;) end, and (olxoup.evrj) world, then both have, 
it is conceived, a double, that is, a limited and an enlarged 
sense, corresponding with the limited sense in which the ques- 
tion was put by the disciples, and the enlarged sense in which 
it was understood by the Saviour. According to the concep-. 
tion of the disciples, the answer of our Lord was fulfilled, as 
the event showed, in the brief space of forty years — or less. 
According to our Lord's conception of the question, as inter- 
preted by the Divine purposes, his answer is yet in progress of 



MEANING OF THE END. 317 

fulfilment. According to this view, in the mind of the Saviour, 
the passage of which this verse forms the conclusion, really 
extends from the time of the delivery of the prophecy to his 
second coming, while in the mind of the disciples it could reach 
only to the end of the Jewish polity, with which they generally 
connected the return of their Master : In other words, besides 
the plain, obvious meaning of the language, considered as 
responsive to the question of the disciples, in the sense in 
which they put it, there was a hidden meaning, founded upon 
the mysteries of the kingdom, see Matt. chap, xiii., which the 
Saviour left for the Holy Spirit to unfold to the apostles, in 
connection with the developments of his providence in a new 
dispensation. 

We pause not to consider whether this observation is appli- 
cable to all the announcements of this passage. The question 
is difficult, and different views of it have been entertained by 
commentators, ancient and modern. See Grotius, Calovius, 
Jerome, Augustine, on verse 6. That they were all designed 
as notes of personal warning to the apostles and the Christians 
of their age, and were fulfilled in their experience, we do not 
doubt, nor should we, even if there were no historical record of 
the events ; compare verse 9 with John xvi. 2 ; Matt. xxii. 6 ; 
1 Thess. ii. 15, 16. Beyond this, we perceive no sufficient data 
for any certain conclusions. 

Matt. xxiv. 15. "When ye, therefore, shall see the abomi- 
nation of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in 
the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand.)" 

If we understand the word "end," in the 6th and 14th 
verses, in the sense of the Saviour, this verse is a resuming, or 
going back from the yet future end of the present dispensation, 
to its beginning, or nearly. But if we understand it in the 
sense of the disciples, as denoting simply the end of the Jewish 
polity, this verse would be in regular prosecution of the pro- 
phetic narrative. Plainly, it is introductory of the events and 
consequences of the siege of Jerusalem. The language is figu- 
rative, and evidently addressed to the conceptions of Jewish 
readers. Luke, as his method is, expresses the same in plain 
language, chap. xxi. 20. We have had occasion repeatedly to 
employ the narrative of Luke as explanatory of Matthew, see 
Matt. xi. 12; xxvii. 54, and shall have occasion to do so again 
in one of the most obscure places in the prophecy we are con- 
sidering. But in order to clearness, we must pause here to 
state some general views, and with them connect the particular 
observations we have to make. 

^ The whole of this prophecy may be distributed into four 
distinct periods, which are consecutive, except so far as 



318 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

the enlarged views of the Saviour imparted a mysterious, 
and thereby a two-fold meaning to his language, as before 
explained. These periods may be denoted: (1.) Jerusalem's 
respite. (2.) Jerusalem's desolation. (3.) The distress of the 
nations ; ■ and (4.) the advent of the Son of Man and the 
judgment of all nations. This distribution leaves out of view 
the parable of the ten virgins, the chronological order or 
sequence of which is not so distinctly marked as that of the 
other parts, and for that reason, it requires a separate con- 
sideration. 

I. To the first of these periods we assign verses 4 — 14, in- 
clusive, of this chapter, and the corresponding verses of the 
other Evangelists, Mark xiii. 5 — 13; and Luke xxi. 8 — 19. 
This period, as before observed, is the same as that denoted by 
the second mission of the servants in the parable of the mar- 
riage. Matt. xxii. 4 — 6. 

The reader should reflect upon this coincidence. It is 
quite agreeable to our Lord's manner of teaching, Matt, 
xiii. 11; discriminating, as we have had frequent occasion to 
remark, between the careless and unfriendly multitudes and 
his disciples. It is also a beautiful example of the harmony 
which pervades his discourses upon this last great day of his 
public ministry. 

There is a difference, also, between the Evangelists in this 
part, too important to be overlooked. Mark and Luke omit 
the observation of the Saviour which Matthew records in the 
14th verse: "And this Gospel, &c, shall be preached in all 
the world (orxoojuevy,) for a witness unto all nations, and then 
shall (to reAoc) the end come." In this expression, chiefly, as 
we have have seen, lies the double sense, which the disciples at 
that time were incapable of apprehending. But observe: 
Mark and Luke record only one of the questions of the dis- 
ciples ; that, namely, respecting the destruction of the temple ; 
and consistently, therefore, they record only so much of the 
Saviour's answer as had respect to that question. Indeed, if 
they had introduced into their narratives the matter of this 
14th verse, it would have been due to accuracy, and even truth, 
to have introduced the other two questions of the disciples. 
The observation is important because it shows us why we are 
not to look for a double sense in this portion of Mark and 
Luke. It is delightful to notice these congruities. They are 
designed; and although not commonly pointed out, even by the 
learned, they are really a perfect moral demonstration of the 
inspiration of the Evangelists. No fabricator of false writings 
could make, or even imagine so nice an adjustment of parts. 
Nay, more— no writer, untaught by the Holy Spirit in the 



Jerusalem's desolation. 319 

mysteries of the kingdom, could even perceive the need of it in 
this instance. 

II. Under the head of Jerusalem's desolation we include not 
only the actual destruction of the city by the Romans, but the 
continued desolation of the land, the captivity and dispersion 
of the people during the eighteen centuries which have followed. 
The period is undefined in prophecy, but Luke relatively marks 
it as co-extensive with the times of the Gentiles; perhaps he 
means the times of mercy appointed to the Gentiles, as well as 
the times of their power, chap. xxi. 24. To the epoch of the 
destruction of the city by the Romans, we assign verses 15 — 
27 of this chapter; also Mark xiii. 14 — 23; and Luke xxi. 
20, 21, 23, and the first clause of the 24th verse. To the 
ensuing ages of the desolation of the city and the land, and its 
subjection to Gentile power, and the condition of the people 
during the same period, we assign the 22d, and the last clause 
of the 24th verse of Luke xxi. Matthew xxiv. 28, appears to 
refer especially to the condition of the people during the same 
prolonged period. Mark passes, at verse 24, from the calam- 
ities immediately consequent upon the destruction of the city, 
to the third of the great periods before mentioned, without any 
notice of intervening events. Let us attend now to some of the 
particulars. 

Matt. xxiv. 16 — 22. "Then let them which be in Judea 
flee into the mountains : let him which is on the house-top not 
come down to take anything out of his house: neither let him 
which is in the field return back to take his clothes. And wo 
unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in 
those days ! But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, 
neither on the Sabbath-day : for then shall be great tribulation, 
such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, 
no, nor ever shall be. And except those days should be 
shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's 
sake those days shall be shortened." 

These verses contain cautions and directions applicable, evi- 
dently, to the Jews of that age. Resistance would be hopeless : 
escape impossible, if these cautions and directions were disre- 
garded; and destruction to those incapable of obeying them 
would be inevitable. 

Matt. xxiv. 23—27. "Then if any man shall say unto 
you, Lo, here is Christ, or there ; believe it not. For there 
shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show 
great signs and wonders ; insomuch that, if it were possible, 
they shall deceive the very elect. Behold, I have told you 
before. Wherefore, if they shall say unto you, Behold, he is in 
the desert; go not forth: Behold, he is in the secret chambers; 



320 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of the east, 
and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the 
Son of Man be." 

The Saviour here returns to his prediction of the appearance 
of false Christs, as if to impress it the more deeply upon the 
minds of his followers. We do not suppose that this was 
intended especially for the four disciples who questioned him, 
or even for the apostles; for we know that all but one of them 
suffered death before the destruction of the city. Nor would 
they, as before observed, be in danger of being deceived by 
false Christs or false prophets, for they were soon afterwards 
taught, by the Holy Spirit, see Acts i. 9 — 11; iii. 21, that 
their Master would not appear again [more humano,) after the 
manner of men. To multitudes of the nation, however, to 
whom this Gospel would be known, and who, by the happening 
of the events the Saviour foretold, might be almost persuaded 
of his Divine mission, these were benign warnings, to which it 
is not improbable many gave heed. 

Matt. xxiv. 26 — 27. "Wherefore, if they shall say unto 
you, Behold, he is in the desert ; go not forth : Behold, he is in 
the secret chambers; believe it not. For as the lightning 
cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so 
shall also the coming of the Son of Man be." 

We regard this 27th verse as a simile or comparison designed 
simply to show the difference between the manner of the appear- 
ance of the Son of Man, and of these false Christs. Our Lord 
does not affirm that he will, at the epoch of the destruction 
of Jerusalem, make his appearance, but that when he next 
appears, the manner of his appearance will be as different from 
that of these false Christs, as the appearance of the lightning's 
flash is from the natural approach of a human being. In other 
words: it will be as impossible to mistake his appearance for 
that of any other human being, as it will be to mistake a flash 
of lightning from one end of heaven to the other, for any other 
phenomenon of nature. 

Matt. xxiv. 28. "For [and] wheresoever the carcass [to 
7izcop.d] is, there will the eagles be gathered together." 

Under this expressive image (to nTco/jta, the carcass,) our 
Lord represents the nation, during the whole period of the 
calamities which were to follow the destruction of their city 
and country. He employs it as a permanent symbol of the 
nation during the whole period of its subjection to Gentile 
power. The prophet Ezekiel, chap, xxxvii., represents the 
whole house of Israel under the imagery of dry bones. The 
symbol our Lord employs, while it expresses with equal empha- 
sis the spiritual death of the nation, is designed principally to 



THE DISTRESS OF THE NATIONS. 321 

represent its exposure to the power of their enemies. Thus 
considered it is full of meaning. The Elect nation, hitherto so 
highly favoured of God, is represented as a carcass cast out 
into the waste, without the common privilege of burial or any 
permanent resting-place — continually preyed upon, without 
being consumed, by ravenous birds. Consistently with this 
exposition, we understand the eagles to represent not the 
Roman power only, but all those Gentile powers which have 
since hitherto persecuted and oppressed this outcast nation. 

This meaning of the symbol we derive from the Evangelist 
Luke xxi. 22. "For these be the days of vengeance, that all 
things which are written may be fulfilled," which we paraphrase 
thus: For this event (encompassing Jerusalem with armies) will 
mark the beginning of that lengthened period during which all 
the Divine judgments foretold by Moses and the prophets 
against this nation, shall be inflicted upon it, so that not one 
shall remain afterwards to be fulfilled. See Deut. xxviii. 
15 — 68; Isa. liv. 8 — 10. There is nothing in Mark which 
can be deemed equivalent to either of these expressions in 
Matthew and Luke. Hence he passes immediately from the 
destruction of Jerusalem to the third of the great periods 
before mentioned — the distress of the nations. It is true that, 
with the light the other two Evangelists reflect on his narra- 
tive, we may discern an indistinct allusion in the 19th and 
24th verses, to prolonged national calamities, and more intense, 
than any which had ever before been experienced. But this is 
not a sufficient ground for independent interpretation. Nor is 
there anything in Matthew equivalent to this plain declaration 
of Luke, except the verse under consideration. 

That these expressions are equivalent, and that the lan- 
guage of Luke was employed with the design to explain the 
dark and awful saying of the Lord, and to show its application, 
we do not doubt. But to verify this opinion would require an 
examination of the things predicted by the prophets, and the 
histories of their fulfilment, in order to perceive the aptness 
and the force of the symbols here employed by the Saviour to 
represent them. This is a labour of time, which we must leave 
to the reader. 

We add: this period, which, like the preceding, belongs to 
Jewish history, is still current. The end of it is among the 
unrevealed purposes of the Father. Acts i. 7. Relatively to 
the Church, that is, to the period appointed' for the gathering 
of the Elect Church, (or that subrogated nation, of which our 
Lord spoke at the conclusion of the parable of the vineyard, 
see Matt. xxi. 43, and notes) we know, however, that it is the 
same, each being, in fact, the measure of the other. See Luke 
41 



322 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

xxi. 24. And it is with a view, as we conceive, to this coinci- 
dence, the Saviour introduces, in the sequel of this discourse, 
the parable of the ten virgins, Matt. xxv. 1 — 12, which relates 
especially to his advent as Messiah, to receive his elect people, 
and not to his advent as the Son of Man, for the judgment of 
all nations. 

III. According to the distribution before indicated, the third 
period — or the period of distress of the nations — is yet future. 
Gentile power is still dominant in the earth. Ever since the 
fall of Jerusalem, the Romans, and the nations which have suc- 
ceeded to their dominion, have preyed like vultures upon the 
carcass and scattered members of the Jewish Commonwealth — 
a fact, which of itself proves, that the predicted period of their 
distresses has not yet commenced. See Jer. xlvi. 28; xxv. 
15 — 33. Distresses they have felt, inflicted by each other, yet 
always under the restraining hand of God, but none such as 
they have inflicted on the Jews. The symbols which the 
Saviour employs to denote the events of this period, in Matt, 
xxiv. 29 ; Mark xiii. 24, 25 ; Luke xxi. 25, 26 — the verses 
which we assign to this period — betoken extraordinary Divine 
judgments; such as have never yet been seen or felt. See 
2 Thess. i. 1—9 ; Mai. iv. ; Isa. ii. 10—22 ; lxvi. 15, 16. 

The futurity of this period may be inferred also from the 
language of the Evangelists. "Immediately after (ttjv dh<ptv 
tojv jjfispcop ixecvcop) the tribulation of those days," &c, says 
Matthew; that is, immediately after the end of the period 
appointed for the tribulation of the Jews. The language of 
Mark, xiii. 24, is equivalent, because he says expressly, that it 
is after (tyjp dlupcv kxewyv) that tribulation which he had before 
described as coming upon the Jews. Luke is the most explicit. 
He shows that this tribulation (Ohipis) includes the whole (dppj 
iu to) Xaa) tootco) of the wrath foretold against that people, 
which, as Mr. Alford remarks, "is yet being inflicted, and 
the treading down of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, is still going 
on." 

Besides these arguments, derived from the texts, there is 
another of great force, founded upon God's method of dealing 
with Jews and Gentiles, which is distinctly noticed by St. Paul 
in Rom. xi. 30, 31, 33, and see verses 11 and 12, 19 — 22; 
i. 16. This method hitherto has been characterized by alter- 
nations^ mercy and judgment ; first to the Jew, and then to 
the Gentile. The period of Judah's desolation is the appointed 
period of mercy to the Gentiles, and of the preaching of the 
Gospel to them for the gathering of an elect people into the 
place of Israel, under the covenant at Horeb. This period, 
which is now current, cannot therefore coincide to any extent 



THE ADVENT OF THE SON OF MAN. 323 

with the period of distress which the Saviour here foretells. 
The very purpose for which this period of mercy was appointed, 
evinces that it cannot take place until the Church shall have 
been fully gathered ; consequently it must follow the excision 
and reprobation of the Gentiles — an act of judgment which 
shall sooner or later be performed — for the same reason that 
the Jews were cut off, namely, the abuse of the privileges 
bestowed upon them. But to proceed: 

How long this period of the distress of the nations, when it 
shall have commenced, will continue, is a secret hidden in the 
Divine mind. That it will be brief compared with the period 
of Jerusalem's desolation, may perhaps be inferred from the 
magnitude and the glory of the purposes to be accomplished in 
the dispensation of the Gospel to the Gentiles. See Isaiah liii. 
11 : Rev. vii. 9. It may be, that during this period, Israel will 
be restored to the land of the covenant, in order to their being 
afterwards converted and constituted into a new and more glo- 
rious earthly theocracy than the former was; and if such be the 
Divine purpose, it would be analogical with the purpose to be 
accomplished during the period of Jerusalem's desolation, viz. 
the gathering of an elect nation out of the Gentiles, to be con- 
stituted into a heavenly theocracy, or a kingdom of kings and 
priests. But this is offered simply as a conjecture, the value 
of which depends upon the support it receives from the predic- 
tions of the ancient prophets. We confess to the belief, how- 
ever, that some great purpose, besides merely that of inflicting 
judgments upon the nations, will be accomplished during this 
period; and also to our ignorance, what that purpose can 
be, unless that which we have suggested. See Dan. xii. 1 
and 12. 

IV. The next period is that of the visible advent of the Son 
of Man in the clouds of heaven, Matt. xxiv. 30, 31; Mark 
xiii. 26, 27 ; Luke xxi. 27, with which we connect the judgment 
of the nations. Matt. xxv. 31 — 46. Not that we suppose the 
judgment of the nations described in the latter passage will 
immediately succeed upon the advent described in the former 
of these passages. On the contrary, there may be a very long 
interval between them, to be filled up with the greatest imagin- 
able events. All the things predicted by the apostle John, from 
Rev. xix. 11, to the end of the twentieth chapter, even the 
judgment of all the dead may intervene. On this point we 
affirm nothing.. But we may perhaps safely affirm that with the 
advent of the Son of Man in power and great glory, will com- 
mence a new era of the Divine administration over man and 
this earth, in which that great and glorious being will take an 
open and direct control over this part of his dominions. 



324 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

These observations, though proper for explanation, are aside 
from our present purpose, which is to consider the structure of 
the Lord's discourse, and the logical connection of its parts, 
which we conceive to be in itself a matter of importance. We 
proceed therefore to say, that if this be the just connection of 
the discourse as recorded by Matthew, we may regard the 
passage from Matt. xxiv. 32 to xxv. 30, inclusive, as paren- 
thetical, or we may consider Matt. xxv. 31 — 46, as a resuming 
of the prophetical discourse at xxiv. 31, which the Saviour 
suspended at that verse for the purpose of giving some private 
notes or tokens of warning, admonition, and exhortation, to his 
followers. It may be added that the passages in Mark xiii. 
28 — 37, and Luke xxi. 28 — 36, are of this admonitory nature. 

This period — that of the advent — we conceive, will be sepa- 
rated from the preceding by an interval of some extent. This 
opinion is founded upon the description our Lord himself gives 
of the world at the time of his coming, in verses 37, 39, and 
see Luke xvii. 26 — 30. Ignorant and regardless of the impend- 
ing event, the masses of the nations will be in eager pursuit 
of all the delights of this life, as they were in the days of 
Noah; and Paul, writing by inspiration, 1 Thess. v. 2, 3, 
describes the day of the Lord's coming as a time of supposed 
peace and safety. Accordingly we understand the 29th and 
30th verses of this chapter thus : 

" Immediately after the tribulation of those days [that is, 
immediately after the termination of that period, during which 
the Jewish body politic, or state, is represented in the preceding 
verse as a dead carcass preyed upon by vultures,] the sun shall 
be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the 
powers of the heaven shall be shaken : and then [that is next in 
the order of these great steps in the march of Divine Providence 
towards the consummation] shall appear the sign of the Son of 
Man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth 
mourn, and they shall see the Son of Man coming in the 
clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Mark xiii. 24; 
Luke xxi. 27. 

We pause not to inquire what we are to understand by "the 
sign of the Son of Man, in heaven," — an expression which 
both Mark and Luke omit. At most we can only conjecture; 
and it is sufficient for our present purpose to observe, that what- 
ever that sign may be, it will not appear till after the distress 
of the nations, and the interval of fancied peace and safety is 
past; for it will be a sign of trouble, causing all the tribes of 
the earth to mourn. 

This consideration suggests that this advent of the Son of 
Man, mentioned in Matt. xxv. 31, will be only for the 



THE JUDGMENT OF THE NATIONS. 325 

judgment of all the nations living on the earth at that time; 
not including the generations of the dead. For observe, it is 
in his Adamic character, or as the Son of Man, he sits upon 
his throne and exercises judgment. In the preceding notes the 
attention of the reader has been frequently called to the 
different relations our Lord sustains to Israel, to the Church, 
and to the world. See the notes on Matt. xii. 8, also see notes 
on Matt. viii. 23— 27, 28—32; ix. 2; xiv. 17; xvi. 13, 14, 
27; xviii. 22, 23; xxii. 41 — 45. As Messiah, he has a king- 
dom of kings and priests, — a multitude which no one can 
number, collected out of all nations, and kindreds, and people, 
and tongues. Rev. vi. 4 — 9. These he will glorify and exalt 
to a parnership in his throne, Rev. iii. 21, and see notes on 
Matt. xxi. 43; xxii. 14. It is to that small portion of this 
immensely great and glorious body, who shall be living un- 
glorified in the flesh at the end of this dispensation, that the 
parable of the ten virgins, Matt. xxv. 1—12, is designed to be 
applied. These were all given to him by covenant (jrpo xara- 
ftohjs xckjjuod, Eph i. 4 ; 1 Pet. i. 20 ; and see John xvii. 24) 
before the foundation of the world. In an especial sense they 
are his purchased possession. Eph. i. 14. They constitute an 
accession of accumulated glory to him, in compensation, so to 
speak, for the immense cost of the Divine achievement of 
redemption. Isa. liii. 11. Their inheritance is a co-heirship of 
all things with Christ. 1 Cor. iii. 21, 23 ; Rev. xxi. 7 ; Rom. 
viii. 17, 29, 30. 

Different widely from these are those of the judged nations, 
whom, at the day of his coming, he shall set at his right hand. 
They are called to inherit a kingdom prepared for them in this 
world (dno xazaftol-qc, xqofiou) from (not before) the foundation 
thereof.* 

These considerations might be enforced by others derived 
from the expressed grounds of approval and reprobation. u I 
was an hungered and ye gave me meat," etc., verse 35, "I was 
an hungered and ye gave me no meat," etc., verse 42. It is a 

* The attention of the critical reader is called to the distinction between 
these two phrases, diro kxtslSoxh; wapou, found in Matt. xiii. 35; xxv. 34; Luke 
xi. 50; Heb. iv. 3; ix. 26; Rev. xiii. 8; xvii. 8, and npo nourx/tloXiis xar/ucu, found 
in John xvii. 24; Eph. i. 4; 1 Pet. i. 20. That they are not equivalent no 
scholar can doubt. That the latter expression is applied in these places only 
to the elect Church, or that kingdom of kings and priests, whom it is the pur- 
pose of God to substitute in the place of Israel, according to the flesh, under 
the covenant of Horeb, will be obvious to any one who reads these passages, 
while the former, in the place now under consideration, may be regarded as 
exegetical of Ps. cxv. 16 (latter clause) and of Dan. vii. 27. And the aptness 
of the expression consists in this: that the designed use of the world, even in 
the mind of the Creator, may be properly said to concur in point of time with 
its origin or foundation. 



326 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

judgment founded simply on works of mercy; not on faith, and 
whatever else may be represented or intended by the oil in the 
virgins' lamps. Matt. xxv. 3, 4. But our object at present is 
not an exposition of the passage, but to indicate what appear 
to be sufficient reasons for the foregoing distribution of the 
discourse. 

If it should be said that the reward conferred is eternal life, 
it would not follow from that, that those thus rewarded are 
aggregated to that elect body or kingdom of kings and priests 
before mentioned. The Lord can bestow the one without the 
other. See verses 14 — 23; Luke xix. 15 — 19. But we pre- 
sume not to speculate on questions which belong only to the 
Divine disposal; feeling assured that the Judge of all the earth 
is not straitened either in his wisdom or power to accomplish 
whatever he has proposed or pleases. The exigencies of crea- 
tion are infinitely more various and vast than any finite mind 
can conceive. Yet the wisdom and power of God provide per- 
fectly for them all, and for each in its time. 

V. The attention of the reader is now recalled to the ques- 
tions of the disciples, Matt. xxiv. 3, " Tell us when shall these 
things be, and what shall be the sign of thy coming," (r^c ^C 
7tapoocna<z,) etc. They undoubtedly, by intention, referred to 
his coming or return to Jerusalem as Messiah. The only part 
of our Lord's discourse which is applicable to this question, 
considered with that intent, is the parable of the ten virgins and 
the advent of the bridegroom; but of this he gives no sign. 
The only note of the time is contained in the word (tote) then, 
Matt. xxv. 1 — " Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened 
unto ten virgins," etc. This word may refer to the end of the 
period of Jerusalem's desolation. We may, perhaps, say with 
confidence, that it does refer to the time when the whole body 
of the elect Church given to Christ shall have been completed. 
See John xvii. 9; Luke xviii. 8. In giving the disciples this 
parable, our Lord, it is probable, tacitly alluded to the parable 
of the marriage, Matt. xxii. 1 — 8, which they had, not long 
before, heard him publicly deliver in the temple. As if he had 
said, Now, the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king, who 
invited many to the marriage festival of his son, and none of 
those invited were willing or worthy to come. But then it will 
be quite otherwise. For then the kingdom of heaven shall be 
like a bridegroom returning with his bride (see Codex Bezos,) 
when many will be willing, and more than are worthy, to come 
and enter in to the marriage. 

As observed before, this parable, with the preceding context, 
(from Matt. xxiv. 32,) and the succeeding, (to xxv. 30, inclu- 
sive,) may be regarded as parenthetical, if considered relatively 



CHRIST'S KINGDOM. 327 

to the whole thread of the discourse. But, however this may 
be, the whole of this passage refers to the Church, or to the 
company called and collected by the servants of the king, on 
their third mission, Matt. xxii. 9 — 14; see xxi. 43, and notes, 
and not to the masses of the nations. This parable and that 
which follows, xxv. 14 — 30, relate to our Lord in his Messianic 
character or relation, and to his kingdom as Messiah — not to 
his Adamic relations or his kingdom as the Son of Man. Com- 
pare the qualifications essential for admission into our Lord's 
kingdom as Messiah, with the grounds of his judgment of the 
nations of the earth as the Son of Man. In the former, each 
must wear the wedding garment, (xxiv. 11, 12,) each virgin 
must have oil in her lamp, (xxv. 3, 4,) each servant must have 
performed service in the faithful use of the talents committed to 
him, (xxv. 20 — 30.) In the latter case, however, the blessed 
of the Father are blessed, and inherit the kingdom prepared 
for them, on the ground of their works of mercy, (xxv. 34 — 40,) 
and the cursed are cursed, because they performed no such 
works, (xxv. 41 — 46.) 

Let no one pervert this rule of judgment by applying it to 
the present dispensation or order of things. It belongs to a 
future one. The present dispensation has for its end the most 
glorious purposes. The highest privileges and the greatest 
responsibilities are cast upon all to whom the gospel is preached, 
see notes on Matt. xvii. 22, 23, and the rule of judgment is 
suited to this condition. The man without the wedding gar- 
ment, Matt. xxii. 12, 13, and the merely unprofitable servant 
(xxv. 30) are cast into outer darkness, and the virgin without 
oil in her lamp will find no admission to the marriage. Matt, 
xxv. 10. See Gal. vi. 7. 

VI. Another observation upon the whole prophecy is, that 
no chronological note, by which the times of any of the events 
discoursed upon by the Saviour can be determined, is given by 
him. None of the periods before mentioned, nor the intervals, 
if any, between them, are chronologically defined. Even the 
destruction of Jerusalem, the nearest of the events spoken of, 
was foretokened by a providential event which did not occur 
within the life-time of three of the disciples the Saviour per- 
sonally addressed. The same general remark is applicable to 
the second period, considered either as the period of the deso- 
lation of Jerusalem, or as that appointed for the calling and 
completing of that elect nation to be substituted in the place of 
Israel, Matt. xxi. 43, and notes, viz. the Church of Christ. 

During this period the Jewish Commonwealth "is represented 
as a carcass, a symbol which excludes the idea of a chronology. 
Luke, though he uses plain language, gives us no means of 



328 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

ascertaining the number of the days of vengeance, or the con- 
tinuance of the times of the Gentiles. But if we consider this 
period as that appointed for the formation of the Church, (notes 
on Matt. xxi. 43,) the continuance of it must be commensurate 
with that work, and the lapses of it are to be measured upon 
its progress — in other words, by the hidden operations of the 
Holy Spirit. From age to age the spiritual building has been 
advancing towards its completion, but who can estimate how 
much has been done, or how much remains to be done? The 
inquiry touches upon the covenant of redemption between 
the Father and the Son — a mystery far beyond the ken of 
creatures. Isaiah liii. 11; John xvii. 2 — 9; Rev. vii. 9. If the, 
reader will consider the greatness and glory of the purposes to 
be accomplished during this period, Eph. iii. 10; 1 Pet. i. 12; 
Eph. i. 21 — 23, he will not marvel at the length to which it has 
already run, nor will he confidently expect its speedy termina- 
tion; yet in obedience to the Saviour's express command he 
will ever be watching for it. Matt. xxiv. 42; xxv. 13. 

We leave it to the reader to pursue the investigation through 
the two remaining periods. He will find nothing which con- 
flicts with the observation at the beginning of this paragraph. 
The prophecy corresponds in this respect with our Lord's 
express teachings, whenever he was inquired of concerning the 
times, Acts i. 7, and is in harmony with the ancient prophecies 
concerning the advent of Messiah. 

VII. One observation more: The Revelation, of St. John 
may be regarded as a symbolical explanation of this prophecy 
or of the principal parts of it. Certainly both stretch forward 
into the same distant futurity, and may reasonably be supposed 
to have at least some points of coincidence. We doubt not 
that light would be thrown upon each, by a comparison with 
the other. It is remarkable, though the writer does not 
remember to have seen it remarked by others, that the apostle 
records his visions under four symbolical captions or headings 
purporting to be the medium through which he received them. 
These may be designed to parcel or distribute the matters of 
the prophecy to distinct subjects, and also to denote lesser 
epochs, or different and perhaps successive stages in the pro- 
gress of the Divine administration. Thus in Rev. iv. 1, John 
saw a door opened in heaven, and certain visions followed. In 
Rev. xi. 19, the scene is changed — The temple of Gf-od is opened 
in heaven. Afterwards, xv. 5, The temple of the tabernacle of 
the testimony in heaven was opened. And finally, xix. 11, he 
saw heaven opened. Do these divisions or partitions correspond 
to any extent with the four periods under which we have con- 
sidered our Lord's prophecy? We do not affirm it — we only 



THE PROPHECY RELATES TO THIS WORLD. 329 

suggest the question, but with great diffidence, to the consider- 
ation of the learned reader ; and we do it because every coin- 
cidence between writings so important, and so difficult to be 
understood, is worthy of serious consideration. Light may 
break in from a quarter we do not anticipate. 

From the foregoing analysis, it appears that the great sub- 
ject of this wonderful prophecy is the way of Providence over 
this world and the nations thereof, from the rejection of the 
Lord Jesus by the Jewish nation, until the final settlement of 
all things earthly under his Headship as the Son of Man. 
See 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25; Heb. ii. 8. The fortunes of the Church 
are not distinctly or directly brought into view. For these we 
must turn to the Revelation of St. John, and other parts of the 
sacred volume. The admonitions and cautions of the Lord, and 
the similitudes in chapter xxv. are digressive from the main 
purpose ; and designed as personal warnings to his followers ; 
supplying rules and motives for each and all in every age, 
until he should come as the bridegroom to receive them. Of 
this event he gives them a sign — "the sign of the Son of Man 
in heaven" — which we suppose will precede his actual appear- 
ance.* Having enforced his command and cautions by two 
impressive parables, he resumes the great line of vision, and 
pursues it to the end, when all rule, and all authority and 
power adverse to him shall have been subdued, and he alone be 
acknowledged and obeyed as the King of the kings and the 
Lord of the lords of the world. 

That this judgment of the nations will not occur till after the 
millennium may be assumed, Rev. xx. 1 — 10, as the power of 
the devil, over the earth and the nations, will then have been 
finally and for ever destroyed. But, relatively to the time of 
judgment of the dead, Rev. xx. 11 — 15, which is represented 
as a distinct act of judgment, we have no data for any con- 
clusion. Perhaps, however, we should not err in supposing 
that (za lQyr t toju aw^ofizvwv) the nations of saved men spoken 
of in Rev. xxi. 24, are the same as those which will be wel- 
comed by the Son of Man into the kingdom prepared for them 
from the foundation of the world. Matt. xxv. 34. 

* The especial significancy of this expression is to be sought for, as vre con- 
jecture, in the parable of the ten virgins. It is the signal for the cry, " Behold, 
the Bridegroom cometh." The reason for this conjecture, is that Mark and 
Luke omit it, as well as the parable. 

42 



330 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 



CHAPTER IX. 

THE CRUCIFIXION. 

First step in the proceedings against the Lord Jesus. — Jews' acknowledgment 
that they were a subject people. — Charges against Jesus. — Colloquy between 
Christ and Pilate. — Pilate's public acquittal of the Lord Jesus. — Pilate moved 
to dismiss the case to Herod. — Jesus' appearance before Herod. — Herod's 
questions. — Christ's silence. — Herod declines jurisdiction. — The fulfilment of 
the second Psalm. 

John xviii. 29. "Pilate then went out unto them and said, 
What accusation bring ye against this man?" 

This was the first step in the proceedings against the Lord 
Jesus before Pontius Pilate. The place was the Prcetorium, 
or the place of Pilate's residence when at Jerusalem. Among 
the Romans, every magistrate who had a military command 
was invested with Praetorian power. ( Varro de Ling. Latina, 
lib. 4; Lamy, Harm.) Such a magistrate was Pilate, and for 
that reason his place of residence was called Prcetorium. This 
happened to be the magnificent palace formerly occupied by 
Herod. It had a vestibule or court, in which a body of troops 
was constantly stationed, as the body-guard of the governor. 
There was a colonnade extending from the palace to the public 
street. The common hall, spoken of in Matt, xxvii. 27, and 
Mark xv. 16, was the Prsetorium, and the band of soldiers 
there mentioned was the whole or a part of the Prsetorian 
Cohort, which accompanied Pilate to the province of Judea. 

In front of this palace there was a pavement, probably some- 
what elevated, called in the language of the country, G-abbatha. 
On this pavement, extending outwards a short distance from 
the Prsetorium or palace, was erected a rostrum or bench, 
which was occupied by the governor when transacting business 
with the Jews, at least on some occasions. This judgment 
seat, it is supposed, had a covering above to protect the head, 
though it was open at the sides for the sake of the more con- 
venient communication with those in attendance.* To this 
place, the chief priests, the elders, the scribes, and the whole 
multitude conducted Jesus from their council, Luke xxiii. 1, 
and it was early on the morning of Friday when they reached 
it. John xviii. 28. 

But early as it was, many things had already been done 
preparatory to the awful transaction which was then to be 

* For a pictorial representation of the Prcetorium (Haus des Pilatus) and 
the pavement (Hochpfiaster,) see "Das Biblische Jerusalem aus der Vogelshau, 
entworfen und gezeichnet von Adolph Eltzner, Leipzig, 1852." 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 331 

commenced. If we turn to the thirteenth chapter of John we 
find the Saviour engaged in a most solemn and affecting inter- 
view with the twelve disciples. After washing their feet, and 
predicting again his betrayal by one of their number, he gave 
a sop to Judas, who thereupon, finally and for ever, separated 
himself from their company. The Evangelist is particular to 
note the time of his departure, as if to show how quickly the 
treacherous design was consummated by crucifixion. John 
xiii. 27. It was night when Judas went out. The devil hav- 
ing entered into the traitor, he proceeded forthwith to the 
chief priests, and having received from them a band of men 
and officers, John xviii. 2, went thence to the garden of Gethse- 
mane. The Lord Jesus having surrendered himself to them, 
they took him first to Annas. John xviii. 13. It is supposed 
the apprehension took place about ten o'clock at night, accord- 
ing to our manner of reckoning. Annas sent him to the house 
of his son-in-law Caiaphas, the high priest. John xviii. 24. It 
is supposed this occurred about eleven o'clock at night. At 
this place he was detained until the Sanhedrim met, which 
was as soon as it was day-dawn — or about four o'clock in the 
morning. About five o'clock, while it was still early, they led 
him to Pilate. 

While thus detained, he was twice condemned, once by the 
high priest soon after midnight, and again by the Sanhedrim, 
about four hours afterwards. This done, they proceeded 
thence soon afterwards to the Prsetorium, or the Palace of 
Pilate, before mentioned, to obtain from him a confirmation 
of their unjust sentence. The unseasonable hour shows the 
urgency of the rulers, and their fear of a rescue by the people. 

The priests, elders, scribes, and all the Jews stopped at the 
judgment seat, upon the pavement outside of the Prsetorium, 
because by entering into the palace of the Roman governor 
they would contract ceremonial defilement, Numb. xix. 22 ; 
Acts x. 28, while the soldiers went forward with their prisoner 
into the hall of the palace itself, where Pilate was. Mark 
xv. 16. Pilate having been thus suddenly, and perhaps unex- 
pectedly, broken in upon, probably before the usual hour to 
commence the transaction of business, and being informed that 
his judgment seat was thronged by a multitude, headed by the 
chief dignitaries of the nation ; and learning from the soldiers, 
probably, that the person they had brought into the hall of the 
Prsetorium was charged with some criminal offence, went out 
to inquire into the nature of it. This was Pilate's first step in 
the business. 

The question of Pilate was "a very proper one for a judge to 
put, when entering on a judicial investigation. It is evident, 



332 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

however, from the course this proceeding took, that Pilate did 
not think it necessary to proceed with much formality.. It 
seems that he did not even expect an accusation in writing. A 
verbal answer, specifying the offence, was all that he required. 
We have an example of a proceeding before another Roman 
governor, a few years later, in a different province, which we 
should consider not merely summary, but very irregular. Acts 
xviii. 12 — 17. At Rome, where the laws were enforced with a 
proper regard to the rights of citizens, proceedings were con- 
ducted with great formality. Any citizen had the right to 
bring an accusation against another ; but to do this properly, 
and in due form, he must appear before the Praetor, and ask 
authority to accuse some person, whom he named, and at the 
same time, take an oath that he was not influenced by motives 
of calumny, but that he acted 'in good faith and for the public 
good. The Praetor drew up this declaration, which at first was 
made to him verbally, but afterwards in writing. This demand 
of the accuser was posted up in the Forum a certain number of 
days before he could proceed, in order to make known publicly 
the names both of the accuser and the accused, and to allow 
others to join in the accusation, or to dispute it. After that, 
the accuser appeared again before the Praetor, and, if it 
appeared proper, he was then allowed to denounce officially the 
name of the person, and the crime of which he accused him," 
stating with precision the circumstances of the case, which he 
subscribed. After some other formalities were gone through 
with, a day was fixed for the trial, when the accuser, the 
accused, and the judges were summoned by the herald of the 
Praetor, and the trial was commenced. Brown s Antiq., 470, 
471. 

Such, briefly, was the care the Roman laws took of the 
liberties of their own citizens. How entirely were they disre- 
garded in this province of the Roman Empire, when the Prince 
of Life was tumultuously arrested and dragged to the tribunal 
of Pilate ! It was not the custom, however, of the Romans to 
treat the people they had conquered with the same considera- 
tion as their own citizens, either in respect to the forms of jus- 
tice, or the punishment they inflicted. See Acts xxii. 25. 
Hence it was that Paul claimed the privilege of his Roman 
citizenship, when he was about to be scourged for no crime, in 
condescension to the malicious clamour of the Jews. Hence, 
too, he claimed his privilege of appeal to Caesar, which belonged 
to him, not. as a subject, but as a citizen of Rome. Acts 
xxv. 10. Yet Pilate's sense of justice, and of the duties of 
his office, prompted him to demand the particular accusation. 
The answer the Jews returned was a mere evasion. He wished 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 333 

to know the particular crime. John xviii. 30. "They answered 
and said unto him, If he were not a malefactor, we would not 
have delivered him unto thee." This answer was probably 
delivered by the high priest, or by some high dignitary of the 
nation. It carries with it an air of oifended pride, as if it were 
derogatory to answer such a question. "If he were not a 
malefactor, we, the high priests and elders of the nation, cer- 
tainly should not have taken the trouble to appear before you, 
whatever others might have done. We have too high a sense 
of justice, and of what is due to ourselves and to others, to 
deliver an innocent man to you. It may be proper for you to 
put such a question to others, but not to us, who would not 
have approached your tribunal in person at any time in the 
case of an ordinary offender, and much less at so early an hour, 
or upon the near approach of a solemn festival." 

Their answer was hardly respectful: for however superior to 
Pilate they may have been in true knowledge, he was their 
governor, and they were the subjects of those laws which they 
called upon him to administer. He had a right to the infor- 
mation which he required, and their answer implied a demand 
on their part, that he should blindly execute their wishes, 
without inquiry. But by their own laws no man could be 
rightfully condemned without a hearing and an inquiry into 
his conduct. John vii. 51. Yet they expected that Pilate 
would proceed contrary to this rule; for it does not appear 
that they informed him of their own midnight proceedings. 
Perhaps they were ashamed to do so ; or, if not, they feared 
these proceedings would reveal their malice. 

It is evident from the rejoinder of Pilate, that he considered 
their answer a disrespectful evasion of a proper question. It 
indicated also, very clearly, his purpose not to be put off in that 
way. From what we know of Pilate's character, it would not 
be too much to say, that his answer was a fling at the dignity 
assumed by the spokesman of the company, as if he had said, 
" Oh, well, if it be so, then you have no occasion for my judg- 
ment in the matter; you can take him away from my tribunal, 
John xviii. 31, and judge him according to your law. You 
have your own laws, your own tribunals, and your own judges ; 
and as you appear to have made up your minds upon the 
guilt of this person, there is no doubt good reason, at least 
in your judgment, why you should proceed in that way; but 
without an accusation you must not expect me to act in the 
business." 

The reply, whatever its import, drew from them a humiliating 
confession. As a nation they were proud of their privileges. 
The idea of bondage or subjection to a foreign power was gall- 



334 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

ing. "We be Abraham's seed, and never were in bondage to 
any man." John viii. 33. But the resolution taken, by Pilate 
on the one hand, and the enmity they cherished to the Lord 
Jesus on the other, forced from them, twice, during this pro- 
ceeding, see John xviii. 31, and xix. 15, the acknowledgment 
that they were a subject people, and obliged to yield obedience 
to laws not their own. They said, 

John xviii. 31. "It is not lawful for us to put any one to 
death." 

Pilate knew that fact as well as they. He knew also, that 
except in cases of capital punishment, they had no occasion to 
consult him, or ask his authority for the execution of their own 
decrees, and the fact of their appearing before him with their 
prisoner, showed that it was a condemnation to death which 
they required. For this they were obliged to ask his consent. 

Josephus, the Jewish historian, informs us, Antiq. book xx. 
chap. 6, that the Jews were deprived of the authority to decree 
the punishment of death about forty years before the destruction 
of Jerusalem, that is, about the year A. D. 30. According to 
others, they were deprived of that power near the end of the 
reign of Augustus, which was about fifteen years earlier than 
the time fixed by Josephus. There was a providential design 
to be accomplished by this change in the Jewish state, as is 
evident by the remark of the Evangelist upon this response of 
the Jews. For he observes that through or by means of their 
subjection to the Romans, and this diminution of their power, 
(for such is the connection between the last clause of the 31st 
and the 32d verse,) it came to pass that, 

John xviii. 32. "The saying of Jesus was fulfilled, signi- 
fying by what death he should die." 

The saying to which the Evangelist especially refers, is 
recorded, Matt. xx. 19; see also Matt. xvi. 21; xvii. 22, 23; 
Mark viii. 31; ix. 31; x. 33, 34; Luke ix. 22—44; xviii. 
31 — 34. Crucifixion was not a punishment appointed by the 
law of Moses, and there is no example of this punishment 
inflicted by the Jews upon those they condemned to death. 
Yet in the passage just cited from Matthew, the Lord foretold 
the whole course of the proceedings which would be had 
against him. "Behold we go up to Jerusalem, and the Son of 
Man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the 
scribes, and they shall condemn him to death; and they shall 
deliver him to the G-entiles to mock and to scourge and to 
crucify, and the third day he shall rise again." 

The manner of his death, he foretold, would not be that 
which was appointed by the Jewish law — stoning — but by a 
Gentile punishment ; and in accordance with this Divine pur- 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 335 

pose, he foretold that he should be delivered to the Gentiles. 
In order to the fulfilment of this prophetic declaration, it was 
necessary that Pilate should take cognizance of the accusation, 
and should proceed to inflict a punishment appointed by the 
laws of Rome. But there was also a reason for the prediction, 
which should also be pointed out. Although crucifixion was a 
cruel and ignominious punishment, inflicted by the Cartha- 
ginians upon prisoners of war and their own citizens of the 
highest rank, but by the Romans only on slaves and such 
inferior persons as were guilty of atrocious crimes, yet it did 
not destroy the bodily organs, crush the flesh, or break the 
bones of the victim, as death by stoning did. It is true that 
in order to increase the suffering, or perhaps to hasten the 
death of the criminal, the executioners sometimes broke his 
legs, John xix. 32, but this was not necessarily a part of the 
punishment. Nor was it permitted in the case of the Saviour, 
John xix. 33; for he was the antitype of the paschal lamb, 
Exod. xii. 46 ; Numb. ix. 12 ; Ps. . xxxiv. 20, and a bone of 
him could not be broken. 

Whether this avowal or reply of the Jews was intended to 
change the purpose of Pilate we need not inquire. It was, 
indeed, a sufficient reason why they should bring their prisoner 
before him, but no reason why Pilate should disregard, not 
only the forms but the rules also of justice. The Jews, per- 
ceiving that Pilate continued firm, proceeded to make an 
accusation in the form required ; but for this we must now turn 
to the Gospel by Luke xxiii. 2. 

We have frequent occasions to observe how admirably the 
Evangelists supply the omissions of each other, and how 
necessary it is to take them altogether, in order to make out a 
full and connected narrative. Matthew and Mark give but 
brief notices of the proceedings before Pilate, and Matthew 
alone relates the message the wife of Pilate sent to him, while 
he sat on the judgment seat. Luke informs us of what took 
place before Herod, while John relates more minutely what 
passed, as we may say, privately, between our Lord and Pilate. 
We will take them altogether in the order of the occurrences, 
and thus endeavour to get a clear idea of the whole proceeding. 
We come now to the accusation made in compliance with 
Pilate's demand: 

Luke xxiii. 2. "We found this man [said they] perverting 
the nation — forbidding to give tribute to Caesar — saying, That 
he himself is Christ — a king." 

Here are three distinct charges:— "We found this man." 
It is not quite agreed what they meant by "found." They 
may have meant to be understood that they had caught or 



336 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

arrested him in the act of sedition and opposition to the 
government. Or they may have used the word in a judicial 
sense, as when we say a jury has found a man guilty of an 
offence charged against him. But in either of these senses the 
accusation was wholly untrue. They arrested him by the aid 
of Judas, during the darkness of the night in the garden of 
Gethsemane, where he had retired to pray. Nor was the 
charge true in the other sense: because they had found or 
adjudged him guilty only of blasphemy, Matt. xxvi. 64 — 66, 
although what he had said was simply bearing witness to the 
truth, in reply to the solemn adjuration of the high priest. But 
leaving this matter for the present, let us attend now to the 
particulars of the accusation : and first, they charge him with 
perverting the nation. 

Probably they intended by this that he disturbed the peace 
by attracting crowds, and inculcating dangerous or disloyal 
sentiments. It is most certainly true that he was followed by 
multitudes who were attracted by his wonderful wisdom and 
works. His miracles of healing were almost without number; 
a few of which only have been recorded. John xx. 30. On 
several occasions he fed thousands in desert places upon a few 
loaves and fishes, and this miracle convinced those who saw it 
of his divine mission. John vi. 14. His daily walk and life 
were truly described by Peter in his address to Cornelius, Acts 
x. 36 — 38: "He went about doing good, and healing all that 
were oppressed by the devil, and preaching peace" — not dis- 
cord or rebellion against the Roman government. Pilate must 
have known his course of life, and this accusation could not 
have had any influence upon him. It is also true that he 
denounced the scribes and Pharisees for their hypocrisy, and 
declared to them plainly the consequences of their wicked con- 
duct, and this it was that offended them. But it was not a mat- 
ter of which the Roman governor could take cognizance. 

Secondly: They charged him with opposing the Roman gov- 
ernment, by forbidding the payment of tribute. Had he done 
so, he would have acted strictly in accordance with their own 
wishes. They were expecting a Messiah, by whom they be- 
lieved the Roman empire would be overturned. If they had 
had the ability, they would have gladly shaken off the Roman 
power themselves at the very time they were making this accu- 
sation. But much as they hated the yoke of the Romans, they 
hated the Lord Jesus still more. 

It is true also, that they had endeavoured to ensnare him 
into an answer which would have affected his influence with 
the people, or exposed him to this accusation. But he, per- 
ceiving their hypocrisy, exposed it, and left them to answer 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 337 

their question themselves. It is worth while to dwell a moment 
on this incident, which is recorded in Matt. xxii. 16 — 22 ; 
Mark xii. 13 — 17; Luke xx. 19 — 25. The chief priests and 
scribes being provoked by his parable of the husbandman and 
his vineyard, Luke xx. 9 — 18; Matt. xxi. 33 — 46, resolved to 
entrap him by a question of politics, which addressed itself very 
forcibly to the popular mind, and perhaps caused the Roman 
government some trouble. They selected some artful person 
out of their own followers, to whom they joined Herodians, and 
sent them as spies. They were instructed to feign themselves 
to be just men, and by words of deference and flattery to entrap 
him into an imprudent expression of his opinion. The ques- 
tion turned upon the obligation of the people to pay tribute to 
the Romans, their conquerors. It was very artfully chosen. 
For either an affirmative or negative response would have 
answered their purpose. If he had replied simply, Yes, it 
would have affected his popularity with the people, and ex- 
posed him to prosecution under their own laws, or if not, ena- 
bled them, as in the case of Stephen, Acts vi. 13, to destroy 
him by a popular tumult. If, on the other hand, he replied 
simply, No, we can see by this very accusation the use they 
would have made of it. Our Lord really refused to meddle 
with it or answer it at all, it being a question of worldly politics 
with which it was not his purpose at that time to intermeddle. 
By making them produce one of the kind of coins they were 
required to pay as tribute, which was a token of their subject 
condition, he told them to render to the powers that be the 
things which they have the right to exact, and to God the 
duties they owed to him, and of this they were to judge for 
themselves. Yet this answer they perverted into the accusa- 
tion before mentioned. If we turn to Rom. xiii. 1 — 8, we find 
a clear exposition of our Saviour's doctrine on this subject. 
Though he was and is the Ruler and Judge of all, yet he re- 
fused to decide a question of property between two brethren. 
"Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?" Luke 
xii. 13, 14. 

Let us now pass to the third head of accusation — "saying 
that he himself is Christ (that is) a king." This accusation is 
appended very artfully to the one just considered. They repre- 
sent it as the reason why the people should not pay tribute to 
Caesar; thereby insinuating that he and not Caesar was entitled 
to demand tribute. As if they had said, "We found this man 
perverting the nation, and telling the people publicly that he 
was their Messiah or Christ, and therefore their rightful king, 
and that they ought to pay him tribute, not Caesar." 

This is what they intended Pilate should understand by the 
43 



338 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

accusation. In point of fact, however, he never had publicly 
given himself out as the Christ or Messiah, as we can easily 
prove from the Gospel histories. So far from the truth was 
this charge, that they knew not a witness by whom they could 
prove the fact; for Matthew informs us, xxvi. 59, 63, that 
although the chief priests and elders, and all the council, sought 
false witnesses against him, and actually found many, yet they 
agreed not in their testimony. To end the matter, therefore, 
the high priest adjured him by the living God to declare whether 
he was the Christ. Had he publicly assumed this character, 
there could have been no difficulty in finding true witnesses of 
the fact. This proceeding of the high priest therefore shows 
that they had no ground whatever to make this accusation, 
except his own confession, drawn from him in a way he could 
not decline. The people, it appears, entertained various opin- 
ions concerning him. Matt. xvi. 14. Some thought he was 
Elias, some John the Baptist, some Jeremiah, or one of the 
prophets. Some surmised that he was the Christ, John vi. 14; 
vii. 41, and on one occasion they gathered around him in Solo- 
mon's Porch, and asked him to say plainly whether he was the 
Christ. John x. 24. On this occasion, as on others, he referred 
them to his works, John x. 25, as he did John the Baptist. 
Matt. xi. 5. He forbade his disciples to tell others that he was 
the Christ, Matt. xvi. 20; Mark viii. 30; Luke ix. 21; and not 
only this, he even exercised his Divine power over devils, who 
knew him by his power, to prevent them from declaring his 
character, Mark i. 34; Luke iv. 41; and the reason why he 
did so, was the Divine purpose to make the people judge of his 
character by their own Scriptures, John v. 39, and his won- 
derful works, by which their Scriptures were fulfilled. In pri- 
vate to his disciples, and those who sought him with a teachable 
spirit, he disclosed his true character — as to the woman of 
Samaria, John iv. 26; to Mary, John xi. 27; to the twelve 
apostles, Matt. xvi. 16, 17; John vi. 48. But none of these 
confessions were known to the rulers of the nation; and if they 
had been, they could form no just ground to accuse him of 
treason, or of setting himself up as a king. Indeed, when the 
people resolved to make him a king by force, he retired for a 
time out of their way to a place of solitude. John vi. 15. This 
examination proves that the accusation, in all its particulars, 
was a mere fabrication, got up for the purpose of meeting the 
unexpected demand of Pilate for a specific accusation. Pilate, 
having received the accusation, retired from the judgment seat 
on the pavement into the Prsetorium, as if to examine the pris- 
oner; but it is evident, from what followed, that the accusation, 
though made under extraordinary and imposing circumstances 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 339 

by the chief dignitaries of the nation, really had no effect what- 
ever upon his mind. The first two particulars of the accusation 
he did not even mention ; and the last was treated of in a way 
to show that he considered it without foundation. But it will 
be instructive to enter into the particulars of the questions and 
answers which passed between them. Previously, however, let 
us endeavour to conceive rightly of the scene. 

While Pilate was conferring with the chief priests and rulers 
around his judgment seat upon the pavement, the Lord Jesus 
remained in the custody of the soldiers within the palace, and 
probably bound. Matt, xxvii. 2. It is probable, also, that his 
person was concealed from the view of the multitude without, 
and beyond their hearing. As to the arrangements within the 
palace, it is impossible to say particularly what they were. 
Thus much, however, we know, that within the palace there was 
a court or hall — a spacious apartment where the soldiers who 
served as the governor's body-guard were ordinarily stationed. 
It contained also an apartment which might be properly called 
the judgment hall, as it was used for the hearing of causes. 
To this apartment, within the Prastorium, Pilate retired as 
before mentioned, and probably taking his seat, as is usual in 
such cases, called Jesus to him. John xviii. 33. Whether he 
was attended by any of the soldiers from the place where he 
was standing, we are not informed; perhaps not; for Pilate 
evidently did not consider him as an ordinary prisoner. How- 
ever this maybe, the Lord Jesus, in answer to the call, approached 
Pilate, and stood before him. 

And now we will pause a moment to consider the character 
of these two persons, before we proceed to the colloquy which 
passed between them. Pilate was, without doubt, a man of 
considerable distinction and influence at Rome. Had he been 
an obscure or ignorant man, or of inferior rank or talents, we 
cannot account for his appointment to so important and difficult 
a province as Judea. His moral character was very bad. Philo 
the Jew {Be Legatione ad Caium) describes him as a judge, who 
for money would render any judgment that should be desired 
of him. He says he committed murders and rapines; inflicted 
tortures on the innocent ; put persons to death without even the 
forms of law. Josephus, the Jewish historian, (see Antiq., book 
18, chap. 4,) describes him as a proud, hasty man, violent in 
his temper, and of inflexible obstinacy, who troubled the repose 
of his province, and gave occasion to sedition and revolt. Be- 
sides, he was a heathen, and no doubt regarded the religion of 
the Jews as a strange superstition, not important to be known, 
except so far as it might be necessary to the administration oi 
his government. Such in brief was the character of the judge. 



340 NOTES ON SCEIPTURE. 

He had not the slightest conception of the real character of 
his prisoner. Outwardly, the Lord Jesus appeared to him a 
mere man, of humble condition. Had he known what was 
veiled under that humble, human form, instead of sitting in 
judgment upon him, he would have fallen at his feet, and the 
work of redemption would never have been wrought through 
his means. 1 Cor. ii. 8. Yet taking him for what he appeared 
to be, Pilate was bound to observe the rules of justice, and 
resolutely to refuse to condemn the innocent. 

But although Pilate was profoundly ignorant of the mystery 
of the Lord's person, we know that he was really Immanuel, 
Matt. i. 23, or God with men, manifest in human nature, 
1 Tim. iii. 16. His body was assumed as a tabernacle or cov- 
ering, in which the glories of the Divine nature were for a time 
hidden. John i. 14. The Scriptures describe him as the 
brightness of the Father's glory, the express image of his 
person, Hebrews i. 3, the image of the invisible God — as 
before all things, as the creator, and upholder, and ruler of all 
things, Col. i. 15, 17, whose name is above every name, and 
entitled to the homage of every creature in the vast universe 
of God. Phil. ii. 9 — 11. He was the Alpha and Omega, the 
beginning and the end, the first and the last. Rev. i. 11; 
xxii. 13. From his creative power Pilate drew his being, and 
by his providential care he was sustained in being. The 
breath by which Pilate condemned him, he owed to the for- 
bearance of the mysterious man who then stood before him. 
It is necessary to bear in mind the character of Pilate, in order 
to appreciate properly his proceedings in this business, and 
also the exalted nature of our Lord, in order to conceive pro- 
perly of his answer to Pilate. 

We now proceed with the narrative, John xviii. 33 ; Pilate 
having entered the judgment hall, and called Jesus to him, said: 
"Art thou the King of the Jews?" See Matt, xxvii. 11. Our 
Lord did not answer this question immediately, but interposed 
a question, and this he did to enable Pilate to set himself in 
the proper light; or, perhaps, we should say, to enable Pilate 
to assume the position which he really occupied. For observe, 
Pilate does not say that the Jews accused him of setting him- 
self up as a king, which was the fact ; but he puts the question 
as thdugh it were prompted by his own mind. He was not the 
chief actor, although from his question, if we knew nothing 
more, we might infer that he intended to be. His sin was the 
less, because he performed only a secondary part, and would 
not have acted at all, had it not been for the importunity of 
the Jews. For some such reason as this, our Lord declined 
his question for a moment by asking him — 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 341 

John xviii. 34. " Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did 
others tell it thee of ine?" 

The reply of Pilate to this question carries with it the air of 
impatience. It was probably uttered with some excitement. 
"Am I a Jew?" As if he had said, You know that I am not 
a Jew. You must also know that I take no interest or part 
whatever in the questions which divide this people. My birth, 
education, official employment, associations in life, all keep me 
aloof from your national disputes. You cannot but know, also, 
that I am perfectly indifferent and impartial upon all such 
questions. If you have been unjustly dealt with, I am not to 
be blamed for it, for I have not caused you to be arrested and 
bound, and brought before me. "But thine own nation, and 
the chief priests have delivered thee unto me." John xviii. 35. 
If any wrong has been done you, they are to be blamed for it. 

The answer of Pilate, thus understood, defines his position, 
and thus accomplishes the supposed object of our Lord's 
inquiry. Pilate at the same time bears witness to the fulfil- 
ment of our Lord's prediction concerning the manner of his 
death, Matt. xx. 19, and also shows the inferiority of his 
guilt. John xix. 11. Observe, now, he does not go on to 
repeat his question, but puts a very different one. He does 
not say, "Tell me, therefore, art thou the king of the Jews?" 
but he inquires in general terms, "What hast thou done?" 
thus showing that he did not expect an answer to his first 
inquiry. Pilate, it is evident, was not deceived by this charge 
of treason. He was sufficiently acquainted with the long- 
cherished expectation of the Jews relative to their Messiah, to 
regard the question rather as one of religion than of politics. 
And, doubtless, he knew that Jesus was chiefly, if not exclu- 
sively, known and regarded by the people as a religious 
teacher. There can be no doubt he had heard of John the 
Baptist, and, like Herod, regarded the Lord Jesus as a man 
of like pretensions and character. However this may be, he 
regarded even this charge as utterly groundless, for he does not 
even persist in his first inquiry, and did not expect it would be 
answered. 

It was not our Lord's purpose, however, to avoid the first 
inquiry. He therefore took no notice of the second, and 
replied not simply that he was a king, or that he had a king- 
dom, but with such a qualification as would prevent a mistake 
on the part of Pilate. We must not forget that he was dealing 
with Pilate as a mere man would with another. Had he simply 
said, "Thou sayest it, I am a king," he would have left Pilate 
at liberty to understand that word in its ordinary acceptation, 
that is, in the sense of an earthly ruler, such as Caesar was. 



342 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Every such supposition or surmise, however, was excluded by 
the reply, ' 

John xviii. 36. " My kingdom is not of this world." 

It is very certain that Pilate had not the remotest concep- 
tion of the nature, or glory, or extent of the kingdom our Lord 
claimed as his own, and we may add, that our limited faculties 
and contracted notions of the majesty and glory of Christ, 
prevent us from fathoming our Lord's meaning. In conde- 
scension, therefore, to the ignorance of Pilate, as well as our 
own, he added words that Pilate could understand, which by 
assuring him that his kingdom, though real, was not sustained 
by material force, as the kingdoms of the world are, gave him 
all the information he needed to decide upon the accusation he 
had just received. 

John xviii. 36. "If my kingdom were of this world, then 
would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the 
Jews. But now my kingdom is not from hence." 

It may be inferred, then, from the reply of Pilate to this 
avowal, that it took him somewhat by surprise. We observe 
that his question as to the kingship of Jesus had been dropped, 
and an inquiry concerning his actions in general had been sub- 
stituted. With Pilate's consent, therefore, he might have left 
the first question unanswered. Pilate had dropped it, thinking 
it, no doubt, too futile to deserve notice. When, therefore, 
our Lord, by assuming that he had a kingdom, virtually 
admitted that he was a king, Pilate instantly drew the infer- 
ence, "Thou art a king, then," For these words, we think, 
should be regarded rather as an inference than as a question 
requiring a further answer. 

Some commentators perceive, as they suppose, an air of 
mockery in these words of Pilate ; but the narrative is so brief 
it is impossible to determine with certainty what emotion was 
prevalent in the mind of Pilate. Perhaps he thought him a 
visionary person, whose pretensions and aspirations were greatly 
at variance with his outward condition. He might have queried 
mentally who those servants were who could fight for him ; and 
what more than imaginary could that kingdom be, which did 
not belong to this world ? If such were his reflections, he may 
have pronounced these words with an air of incredulity; at 
least, it is certain he did not regard his pretensions to royalty 
treasonable; for a few moments after he told his accusers that 
he found no fault in him. Pilate was evidently much impressed 
by our Lord's manner, and this prepared him for the deeper 
impression which was afterwards made upon him, when the 
Jews made the further accusation against him, that "he made 
himself the Son of Grod." John xix. 7. Waiving, however, 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 343 

further inquiry at present upon this subject, let us pass on to 
our Lord's response, 

John xviii. 37. " Thou sayest [the truth], I am a king." 

We shall enter somewhat into the meaning of these words if 
we consider that our Lord, although he appeared to Pilate as a 
mere man, was in truth the Divine Word made flesh, John i. 14 ; 
the Creator of all things, John i. 3; the Divine Wisdom set up 
from everlasting, from the beginning, Prov. viii. 22 — 31; Im- 
manuel, or God in human nature, Matt. i. 23; as come down 
from heaven and yet in heaven, John iii. 13; xvi. 28. He was 
in glory with the Father before the world was, John xvii. 5; 
but laid his glory aside to accomplish the redemption of men. 
Philip, ii. 6—11. 

As the Creator of all things, the only revealer of the Divine 
attributes, he was officially, nay, essentially, the Ruler and 
Governor of all things; the King of kings, and the Lord of 
lords. In the true and proper sense he was the only king, 
inasmuch as he was the Creator of all kingdoms and all kings. 
His was the only kingdom — kingdom of the heavens — vast 
beyond our conception ; a kingdom which from the beginning 
of creation has moved on with uninterrupted sway throughout 
myriads of worlds; many, and perhaps most, of which far 
exceed our own in magnitude, as well as in original glory. We 
have no reason to suppose that God has left his vast creation 
unpeopled with intelligent orders of beings, capable of giving 
glory to him. Nor have we reason to suppose that he has- suf- 
fered sin extensively to enter into the worlds he has made, and 
mar his work. All this vast creation was under the headship 
of Jesus, acknowledging his sovereign rights as King and Cre- 
ator (our world excepted) at the very moment he uttered these 
words to Pilate ; and it was the purpose of his incarnation and 
of his being before Pilate at that time to restore this world to 
its proper place in this vast fabric. Eph. i. 10. Every pater- 
nity or race of beings throughout the universe, diversified though 
they may be, as the worlds are which they inhabit, are named 
from him, Eph. iii. 15, and he is the Lord and King over all. 

In this sense we are to understand the words, " Thou sayest, 
I am a king." We now go back a little to consider those other 
words, "My kingdom is not of this world." 

This world was not always as it now is, in a state of revolt, 
and groaning under the curse of God. Rom. viii. 22. It was 
not created to bring forth thorns and briers. The sin of man 
wrought a vast change in the condition and relations of this 
world to the rest of the universe. Gen. i. and iii. The king- 
dom which prevailed throughout the rest of God's creation was 



344 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

withdrawn, but with the purpose to restore it by redemption, 
through the sufferings and death of its rightful King. 

We are prepared now to enter somewhat into our Lord's mean- 
ing*. It may be expressed thus: "Although my kingdom is 
from the beginning of the creation, and in its origin embraced 
all worlds, yet it does not now extend to this world, which is in 
revolt, and is labouring under the curse of God, and will labour, 
until it shall be redeemed in a way consistent with the Divine 
honour and justice. The kingdoms of this world will be per- 
mitted to exist yet a while, and to run their appointed course; 
and while they continue, my kingdom, which embraces all other 
worlds, will not embrace this. But when this world shall be 
redeemed and restored to its proper place in creation, then my 
kingdom will embrace this world also, for it shall then acknow- 
ledge me as its rightful king, and yield me a willing and perfect 
obedience." 

John xviil. 36. "But now [that is, during this order of 
things] my kingdom is not from hence." 

Some persons suppose that the Redeemer had respect chiefly 
to the spiritual nature of his kingdom, when he declared that 
it was not of this world, but we think that such an inter- 
pretation falls short of his meaning. His kingdom is indeed 
spiritual, and ever will be. It is not maintained by material 
force or carnal weapons, nor by the might or power of man. 
He said as much when he told Pilate that his servants would 
fight to prevent his being delivered to the Jews, if his kingdom 
were like the kingdoms of this world. Where his kingdom pre- 
vails, he has only willing subjects. His laws are written on 
their hearts, and it is their happiness and glory to yield him a 
perfect obedience. Not a discord exists throughout their count- 
less hosts. We have a beautiful illustration in one respect of 
what the kingdom of Christ will be over redeemed men in Luke 
xxii. 24 — 30. Love to God, love to the Redeemer, love to their 
fellows — full, perfect, ever glowing, ever expanding, produced 
and maintained by the Holy Spirit, will be the great principle 
of all their actions. It is therefore truly a spiritual kingdom, 
though it will have respect to material objects. It is true also 
that Christians, really such, are influenced, though with many 
imperfections, in this life by the same great principle of love, 
produced and maintained by the Holy Ghost. 

Such was his kingdom over all unfallen worlds at the time 
he uttered these words, although it extended to and embraced 
the material fabric of creation ; and such will it be over this 
earth, when it shall be delivered from the curse, and garnished 
anew. To this period he alludes in his interpretation of the 
parable of the tares. "The field," he says, Matt. xiii. 38, "is 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 345 

the world" (6 xoa/ioc,) the harvest is the end of the dispensation 
or age. " As, therefore, the tares are gathered and burned in 
the fire," so shall it be in the end of this dispensation or age. 
"The Son of Man shall send forth his angels, and they shall 
gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them 

which do iniquity Then shall the righteous shine forth 

as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." 

The apostle Peter teaches us that there shall be new heavens 
and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 2 Pet. iii. 13. 
He also foretells the end of the heavens and the earth which 
now are, that is, of this present world. They are reserved 
unto fire. 2 Pet. iii. 7. Our Lord himself, Matt. xix. 28, speaks 
of a second creation [Tialqyzvzata^) which can only mean those 
new heavens and new earth foretold by Isaiah, lxv. IT, and 
Peter. It was to this future condition of our earth, in its 
regenerated state, our Lord specially referred when he said to 
Pilate, "My kingdom is not of this world," tacitly alluding to 
the world to come, when all things will be made new. Rev. 
xxi. 5. Other places of Scripture might be cited to illustrate 
this view. Dan. vii. 13, 14, 27. 

It is not an objection that Pilate did not so understand our 
Lord's answer. He was a heathen, and probably entirely 
unacquainted with the Jewish Scriptures; or, if not, regarded 
them with incredulity. 

The only words which Pilate understood were those of the 
parenthetical clause. " If my kingdom were of this world then 
would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the 
Jews." The idea of a kingdom, vast as the universe, existing 
at that very time under the sway of the Lord Jesus, was alto- 
gether beyond the conception of Pilate. As little could he 
conceive of the Divine purpose in regard to this little speck of 
earth, isolated and shut off by its revolt from the rest of 
creation. Even we, who have the Bible, are slow to compre- 
hend this great truth — the truth which comprehends within 
itself all other truths; for such our Lord regarded it, as is 
plain from the words which follow. John xviii. 37. " To this 
end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that 
I should bear witness unto the truth." 

The meaning is not that Christ was born to be a king, as 
some suppose. He was a king before he was born. He could 
not cease to be a king by his incarnation. He only laid aside 
the glory he had with the Father for a little w T hile, that he 
might restore a revolted province and unite it again to the rest 
of his kingdom in such a manner as would maintain the honour 
of his law and the glory of his government. 

The sense is, that he was born — that he became incarnate — 
44 



346 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

and had continued so long in the world (incarnate) that he 
might bear witness unto the truth, in which term he compre- 
hends the great truths which encircle all the realities of the 
universe as God made it, and designs to maintain and preserve 
it under himself as the Head. This sentiment is elsewhere 
very plainly declared. Thus Paul teaches that all things con- 
sist and have their being in Christ, Col. i. 17 ; that he is the 
upholder and maintainer of all things, as Creator and King. 
Hence he is the Truth and the Life. John xiv. 6. His testi- 
mony to his own character and offices, therefore, was a tes- 
timony to that great truth upon which all truth depends. He 
was himself a manifestation of the Divine glory; and in his 
work of creation and providence he is the revealer of the 
Divine attributes. His work of redemption, including his 
incarnation and death, will for ever be a manifestation of the 
truth and reality of his relations to the universe, and of his 
supremacy over all created things, to the glory of God the 
Father. In the present condition of things in this world, 
the great truth of the universe is hidden in a mystery from 
men. We have not, in our present state, nor can we have, 
any adequate conception of the realities which are scattered 
around us in infinite profusion throughout the fields of space. 
At best the most enlightened Christian sees through a glass 
darkly or obscurely. Hereafter we shall all see clearly. 

Bearing these thoughts in mind, we may more easily enter 
into the meaning of the next clause, John xviii. 37: "Every 
one that is of the truth heareth my voice." The sentiment is 
the same as that expressed in John viii. 47, "He that is of 
God heareth God's words." We need not restrict this declara- 
tion to an earthly application. It is true of all God's creatures 
in all worlds. Few of the children of men at that time heard 
his voice with obedient hearts, or even now hear it; while 
myriads of myriads of glorious and holy creatures in other 
parts of Christ's kingdom, ever have yielded a joyful obedience 
to his will; and so will it be on earth, when the kingdom of 
God shall come. For then, we are taught, the obedience of 
redeemed men shall be as perfect as the obedience of heaven. 
This is foretold by Isaiah, liv. 13, and by our Lord himself, 
John vi. 45. 

Pilate's attention was momentarily arrested by this observa- 
tion, although he was utterly incapable of entering into the 
comprehensive consideration of the truth intended. Some sup- 
pose that Pilate was sceptical enough to doubt whether there 
was any such thing as truth. If so, his question, " What is 
truth?" was prompted by incredulity. It is probable, however, 
his chief desire was to get on with the business in hand, and to 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 347 

despatch the crowd which had gathered around his tribunal, as 
soon as possible. But however this may be, he was allowed to 
break off the colloquy without an answer. Indeed, judging 
from our Lord's conduct towards his disciples, we cannot sup- 
pose that he intended to enter into an explanation of his pre- 
vious observation; because Pilate was incapable of forming any 
just conception of the hidden truth of which he spoke. Why 
should he, when he forbore to tell his disciples many things, 
because they could not bear or comprehend them? John xvi. 12. 
Evidently it was for the instruction of his Church, that he 
said these things to Pilate ; because the business Pilate had in 
hand did not require any instruction in the nature of truth. 
Had it been our Lord's purpose to say more, he would have 
exercised his power over Pilate's mind, so as to detain him 
longer. 

It is remarkable that these were the last words our Lord 
addressed to Pilate, except those which are recorded in John 
xix. 11. Although questioned, and mocked, and scourged 
repeatedly by Pilate and Herod, he answered nothing ; thus 
fulfilling Isa. liii. 7: a He was oppressed and he was afflicted, 
yet he opened not his mouth. He is brought as a lamb to the 
slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb, so he 
openeth not his mouth." 

We now resume, John xviii. 38: Pilate having said, "What 
is truth?" — for it can hardly be called a serious inquiry, as 
Pilate did not think it worth his while to stay for an answer — 
immediately proceeded again from his hall within the Pras- 
torium, to the judgment seat on the pavement without, where 
the chief priests and the people still stood, Luke xxiii. 4, and 
declared to them publicly the result of his examination, in 
these words, Luke xxiii. 4; John xviii. 38: "I find no fault at 
all in this man." 

One would suppose that this public acquittal should have 
ended the matter. We should think it very strange, and 
entirely inconsistent with regular proceedings, that accusers 
should be permitted to renew the charge after the acquittal of 
the accused. If such was the course of a criminal proceeding 
in the provinces of the Romans, we can only say that the for- 
malities of their own laws, and the dignity, regularity, and jus- 
tice of their ordinary judicial proceedings, were entirely disre- 
garded by their provincial functionaries. They certainly were 
so in this case ; for notwithstanding this acquittal by the gov- 
ernor, the chief priests and elders were allowed still to persist 
in accusing him, Mark xv. 3; Matt, xxvii. 12 — 14, of many 
things, but he answered nothing. 

The narrative left the Lord Jesus bound, and standing in the 



348 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

judgment hall, within the palace, while Pilate went out to the 
judgment seat on the pavement, to announce the conclusion to 
which he had come. It is probable, however, that the Lord 
Jesus was at the same time, or soon after, conducted from the 
palace to the same place, by one or more of the soldiers; for 
we are told that Pilate, upon hearing these new accusations, 
said to him, Matt, xxvii. 13: "Hearest thou not how many- 
things they witness against thee ? But he answered him never 
a word." 

Such deportment, under the circumstances, seemed surprising 
to Pilate. He could not conceive that a man so fiercely 
accused by the chief men of his nation, could remain silent 
when called upon to speak. He supposed he would at least 
deny his guilt. Pilate, therefore, takes notice of this silence 
and renews the question. 

Mark xv. 4. "Answerest thou nothing? Behold how 
many things they witness against thee." Still he answered 
nothing, so that Pilate marvelled greatly. Matt, xxvii. 14. 
His silence, however, had no softening effect upon the priests. 
It rather made them the more fierce. They reiterated one of 
the charges they had already made, but with the addition of 
other circumstances, saying, Luke xxiii. 5, "He stirreth up 
the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, beginning from 
Galilee to this place," that is, Jerusalem. Observe now that 
this accusation, to be of any moment, should mean nothing less 
than seditious conduct, by teaching dangerous and exciting 
doctrines extensively to the people. But this charge made 
no more impression on Pilate's mind than the former one. 
It does not appear that he even took it into consideration at all 
at that time, for the word G-alilee immediately suggested to 
him an expedient by which he hoped to get rid of the whole 
matter. Galilee was not within the jurisdiction of Pilate, but 
of Herod; and he knew that Herod at that very time was in 
Jerusalem, having come to attend the feast of the Passover, as 
he supposed, but in truth having been brought there in the 
Providence of God to take part in the awful scenes which were 
then enacting. Acts iv. 25 — 29. The thought instantly 
occurred to Pilate to send Jesus and his accusers with the 
cause to Herod, under pretence that Herod was the proper 
functionary to decide the matter. He therefore promptly dis- 
missed the whole party from his tribunal, and probably sent 
the Lord Jesus under custody to Herod, hoping, no doubt, that 
he should not be called on to act further. 

It does not appear how long Pilate had been engaged in the 
business. The priests, we have seen, came to the Prsetorium 
at an early hour, perhaps about five o'clock, or a little before 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 349 

\sunrise. It is probable that Pilate, after the cause was sent 
back to him by Herod, gave his final sentence as early at 
latest as nine o'clock, according to our mode of reckoning time. 
Consequently, to allow space for the transaction before Herod 
and the subsequent completion of the tragedy, we must suppose 
that Pilate sent the Lord Jesus to Herod as early as seven 
o'clock, and consequently it was still early when the Jews 
appeared before Herod. Yet we have not the means of com- 
puting the time precisely. What we do know is, that the 
crucifixion commenced at the third Jewish hour, Mark xv. 25, 
that is, about nine o'clock in the morning. This would corres- 
pond with the sixth Roman hour, which, according to the 
common understanding, extended to nine o'clock. 

Before we proceed with the narrative, let us pause a moment 
on this conduct of Pilate. We have seen that he was astonished 
at the silence of the Lord Jesus, and endeavoured repeatedly 
to induce him to speak. What his motive was we can only 
conjecture. Perhaps, cruel and hard-hearted as he was, he 
felt some compassion for the man whom he knew to be inno- 
cent. But probably his chief motive was a selfish one. He 
wished Jesus to furnish him with the means of discharging him, 
so that he might refuse compliance with the demand of the Jews, 
without seeming to be favourable to Jesus. He saw plainly 
that the motive of the Lord's silence was not contempt for him, 
nor even contempt for his accusers. Contempt it could not be. 
That is a feeling which belongs to our corrupt nature, and it 
implies some proportion between the contemner and the con- 
temned. The Divine nature of our Lord placed him at an 
infinite remove from those into whose hands he had surrendered 
himself. It was in compassion for sinners of mankind, that 
he had thus humbled himself, and in that compassion even 
Pilate and the chief priests shared. This is proved by his 
prayer on the cross: "Father, forgive them, for they know not 
what they do." The patience and the dignity of the Redeemer 
did not escape the notice of Pilate. Could he have read and 
understood the prophecy of Isaiah liii. 7, the impenetrable 
mystery would have been solved. He was the lamb of God 
brought to the sacrifice. He was no more under the influence 
of the passions of the human heart than that emblem of his 
person and work. Like his office as Redeemer, his demeanour 
on that occasion was a mystery concealed alike from men and 
devils. 1 Cor. ii. 7 ; Heb. ii. 14. 

The conduct of Pilate in sending the cause to Herod deserves 
reprehension. There was no sincerity in • the pretence he 
offered. His motive was to get rid of a responsibility properly 
devolved upon him, in a way that put in jeopardy the rights of 



350 NOTES ON SCEIPTURE. 

innocence. It was selfish prudence acting in opposition to the 
demands of justice. He ought to have discharged his own 
duty, and not to have cast it upon another. In the apocryphal 
book of Ecclesiasticus, vii. 6, we find a maxim which it had 
been well for Pilate to have considered, before he accepted of 
the responsible office which he held: "Seek not to be a judge, 
being not able to take away iniquity, lest at any time thou fear 
the person of the mighty, and lay a stumbling-block in the way 
of thy uprightness." Pilate has had many followers in this 
part of his conduct in all ages. Men love authority, but fear 
the dangers it brings with it. Many, like Pilate, have recoiled 
from perpetrating acts of injustice, yet in a way to elude the 
demands of justice. Many have paid homage to conscience, 
but greater homage to man. Many have desired to appear 
wise, moderate, disinterested, and equitable, under pretence of 
not wishing to usurp functions or rights which belong to another, 
hoping thereby to conceal, under an honourable exterior, their 
weakness and cowardice. Such, beyond all reasonable ques- 
tion, were the real motives of this politic governor. His duty 
clearly was to have adhered to his own conclusions, and reso- 
lutely to have put an end to the cause, of which he had full 
and final jurisdiction. His fault in sending the Lord to Herod 
was soon after followed by others of a much graver character. 
We now proceed to the hall of Herod. 

Luke xxiii. 8. "And when Herod saw Jesus he was exceed- 
ing glad; for he was desirous to see him of a long season, 
because he had heard many things of him, and he hoped to 
have seen some miracle done by him." 

The Herod here spoken of was Herod Antipas, a son of 
Herod the Great, by Cleopatra, his fifth wife. In order to 
distinguish between the different Herods mentioned in the New 
Testament, it is proper to give in this place a short account of 
them. Herod the Great, king of Judea, &c, mentioned in 
Matt. ii. 1, and Luke i. 5, was the son of Antipas, or Anti- 
pater, an Idumean, who was made Prefect of Judea and Syria 
by Julius Caesar. Antipater died before the incarnation of our 
Lord. Herod the Great had four sons : Aristobulus, whom he 
put to death ; Archelaus, mentioned in Matt. ii. 22 ; Philip, 
mentioned in Luke iii. 1 ; and Herod Antipas, who is spoken 
of in Matt. xiv. 3 ; Mark vi. 14 ; Luke iii. 1 ; ix. 17 ; xxiii. 11. 
Aristobulus left three children, viz. Herod, king of Chalcis; 
Herod Agrippa, the elder, mentioned in Acts xiii. 1; and 
Herodias, who married Herod Philip, Matt. xiv. 3, her uncle. 
Herod Agrippa, the elder, Acts xiii. 1, left three children : 
Berenice, mentioned in Acts xxv. 13; Agrippa, the younger, 
Acts xxv. 13 ; xxvi. 1—32 ; and Drusilla, mentioned in Acts 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 351 

xxiv. 24. Herod Antipas is most frequently mentioned in the 
New Testament of all, and to him the Evangelist, in the verse 
just quoted, refers. 

This was that Herod * who put John the Baptist to death, in 
complaisance to Herodias, the daughter of Aristobulus, Matt. 
xiv. 3 — 12. He was the person to whom our Lord applied the 
epithet fox, Luke xiii. 31 — 33, in allusion to his crafty, insidi- 
ous character. He was a deep dissembler, yet much more 
enlightened than Pilate in the religious faith of tlie Jews. He 
had often heard John the Baptist with pleasure, and was in 
many things influenced by him. Mark vi. 20. He feared John, 
and ordered his execution with reluctance. Yet he was a vain, 
unprincipled man, curious in his inquiries, fluctuating between 
religion and infidelity — a character not uncommon among 
princes, philosophers, and other persons whom the world 
accounts great. He had heard of the Lord Jesus, but had 
never seen him. He even surmised that he was no other than 
John the Baptist, risen from the dead, and accounted, for his 
miraculous powers in that way. Luke ix. 7, 9; Mark vi. 14; 
Matt. xiv. 2. Herod was pleased to see the Lord Jesus, 
because his curiosity, and perhaps his fears, had been excited 
by the reports he had heard of his wonderful works, and the 
opportunity had at length occurred to remove the one, and 
gratify the other. 

Had the Lord Jesus been actuated by considerations of 
human prudence, he would have embraced the opportunity 
thus afforded him of ingratiating himself with Herod. He 
was a Jewish prince, well instructed in the Jewish religion, 
who had enjoyed the benefit of John the Baptist's instructions, 
and might have been influenced by a miracle to interpose his 

* Antipas or Antipater, an Idumean, made Prefect of Judea and Syria by 
Julius Caesar. 

I 

Herod the Great, King of Judea, &c. 
Matt. ii. 1. Luke i. 5. 

Aristobulus, put to Archelaus, Philip, Herod Antipas, 

death by his fa- Matt. ii. 22. Luke iii. 1. Matt. xiv. 3. 

ther. Mark vi. 14. 

Luke iii. 1; ix. 17; 
xxiii. 11. 
Herod, King of Chalcis. | j 

Herod Agrippa, the elder, Herodias, married to He- 
Acts xiii. 1. rod Philip, Matt. xiv. 3. 

| 

Berenice, Agrippa, the younger, Drusilla, 

Acts xxv. 13. Acts xxv. 13 : xxvi. 1 — 32. Acts. xxiv. 24. 



352 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

influence and authority for his protection. But it is very evi- 
dent that Herod was utterly ignorant of the reasons for which 
miracles were appointed. Herod had listened to John as a 
preacher, whose office it was to preach the kingdom, and to 
baptize the nation, but not to perform miracles. John x. 41. 
With our Lord's personal ministry commenced the time of 
miracles, and they were wrought by him and his apostles, as 
proofs of the doctrine or fact which they preached. But at 
the time we speak of, the personal ministry of our Lord was 
ended. The Jewish nation had rejected him, and he was now 
about to offer his body as a sacrifice for sin. Even during his 
active ministry our Lord had performed miracles only as proofs 
of his doctrine, or to relieve the sufferings of those who ap- 
proached him with faith. It was impossible, therefore, that 
after his public ministry was closed, and the purpose of miracles 
was accomplished, he should perform a work to gratify the curi- 
osity of a wicked prince, who had put to death his forerunner. 

The Evangelists do not inform us what questions Herod put 
to him, but Luke says, 

Luke xxiii. 9. "He questioned him in many words." 

It has already been mentioned, Matt. xiv. 1, 2, that when he 
first heard of the fame of Jesus, he said to his servants that 
Jesus was John the Baptist risen from the dead ; and he under- 
took to account in that way for our Lord's miraculous powers. 
This is an instance of the power of conscience. It proves that 
Herod had a knowledge of the doctrine of the resurrection, and 
believed it. If this impression still continued on his mind, it is 
not improbable that Herod directed some of his questions to 
that point, in order to know whether he was really John under 
another name. If Pilate sent the accusation of the Jews, that 
he claimed to be the Messiah, it is probable he questioned him 
upon that subject also. Perhaps, too, some of Herod's ques- 
tions were suggested by the accusations of the chief priests and 
scribes; for the Evangelist informs us, that, Luke xxiii. 10, 
"The chief priests and the scribes stood and vehemently 
accused him." 

By this we know that the priests and scribes went from 
Pilate's judgment seat on the pavement, to the lodgings of 
Herod. This shows how intent they were upon accomplishing 
their object. They were alarmed, perhaps, by the favourable 
judgment of Pilate. They feared, perhaps, that Herod, who 
had not thus far participated in their evil feelings, might be 
overcome, or be persuaded by the dignified bearing and per- 
suasive words of Jesus, and confirm the favourable sentence of 
Pilate. They, therefore, renewed their efforts, and invented, 
perhaps, new accusations, although we are not told what accu- 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 353 

sations they made before Herod, and urged them with greater 
vehemence, in order to persuade Herod to their side; or, per- 
haps, to intimidate him, if he were inclined to hesitate. But 
whatever were the motives of Herod, or the reasons of his joy 
at seeing Jesus, or the accusations or the motives of the priests 
and scribes, they were all disappointed by the unforeseen and 
unexpected demeanour of the Redeemer; for we read, 

Luke xxiii. 9. " He answered him nothing. 

It is remarkable, that while the Lord answered questions 
before the Jewish council, and before Pilate, before Herod he 
was perfectly silent. The effect of his silence upon Herod was 
not the same as we have noticed in the case of Pilate. Indeed, 
if we compare the conduct of Pilate, as far as we have gone, 
with that of Herod, the advantage is in favour of the former. 
Pilate had not derided him, and he evidently wished to release 
him. But Herod and his minions indulged in unfeeling mock- 
ery, in spite of the calm and heavenly dignity of the Lord Jesus. 

Luke xxiii. 11. "He, with his men of war [that is, his 
military suite which attended him to Jerusalem], set him at 
naught, and mocked him, and arrayed him in a gorgeous robe 
[probably of a purple colour, as a scoff at his kingly dignity], 
and sent him [back thus attired] to Pilate." 

Why Herod sent him back, we are not informed. Some 
have surmised, that it was because he found on inquiry, that 
Jesus was not born within his province, but at Bethlehem, 
within the jurisdiction of Pilate. It is plain, however, that 
Herod, for some reason, declined to take jurisdiction of the 
cause; and although he cruelly derided him, yet he did not 
condemn him. Such conduct in a case of the humblest of 
Herod's subjects, was utterly unworthy of the dignity of the 
lowest magistrate, and much more so of a prince or governor. 
The conduct of Herod shows that he was devoid of compassion, 
as well as of the sentiments becoming his station. Herod, by 
clothing him in a scarlet robe, intended to intimate that his 
claims to royalty were vain and chimerical, and with the same 
motive Pilate may have composed the inscription he put over 
the cross. But both Herod and Pilate in this way rendered a 
public testimony to his true character, without intending to 
do so. 

This union of these two men with the people whom they 
represented, is noticed in Acts iv. 25, 27, as a fulfilment of the 
second Psalm. "Why did the heathen rage, and the people 
imagine a vain thing?" .... "For of a truth, against thy 
holy child Jesus whom thou hast anointed, both Herod and 
Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles, and the people of Israel, were 
gathered together to do whatsoever thy hand and thy counsel 
45 



354 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

determined before to be done." Their union in this work 
extinguished the enmity which had previously existed between 
them, for Luke adds, that " The same day Pilate and Herod 
were made friends together, for before they were at enmity." 
Luke xxiii. 12. 

He does not tell us what was the cause of their enmity, but 
only the fact. It is true that Pilate had treated some Gali- 
leans who were subjects of Herod, with great barbarity, and 
this may have been the cause. Yet the cause, whatever it may 
have been, was considered of inferior moment to the compli- 
ment Pilate had paid to Herod, in transmitting Jesus to his 
jurisdiction, upon being informed that he was a Galilean. 



CHAPTER X. 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 



Pilate resumes the trial of the Lord Jesus. — His expedients to satisfy our Lord's 
accusers. — His solemn acquittal of Jesus. — The imprecation of the Jews. — 
Pilate's efforts to reconcile the demands of justice and his own conscience with 
his fears. — Second mockery of the royalty of Jesus. — The Jews endeavour to 
remove the scruples of Pilate by a new accusation. — Satan the chief actor in 
this great conflict. — Pilate given over to the invisible power of Satan. — Jews 
and Gentiles concur in the accomplishment of the mystery of redemption. — 
Juclas's repentance not genuine. — An allegorical intimation of the future call 
of the Gentiles. — Jesus' warning to those who bewailed him. — National ruin 
of the Jews, and its continuance. 

It was no doubt with regret that Pilate saw the soldiers return 
through the streets — at that time crowded with strangers who 
had come to attend the feast — with their prisoner to his bar. 
He had hoped to escape all further responsibility, but he found 
himself mistaken. It is probable the priests, and scribes, and 
the multitude, followed closely in the train. Seeing, therefore, 
no escape, Pilate resumes the trial ; having first 

Luke xxiii. 13. " Called together the chief priests, and the 
rulers, and the people." 

The embarrassment of Pilate arose from his indecision ; and 
the unjustifiable expedient of sending Jesus to Herod as a 
prisoner. Herod returned him as such, in custody, to Pilate, 
and Pilate, therefore, could not avoid proceeding further. 
Had he declared plainly and firmly his sentence in the first 
instance, he would have freed himself from all further trouble. 
He ought not to have given the priests, and scribes, and 
people, the slightest encouragement to hope anything further 
or different from him, and adhered to his purpose with firm- 
ness. 



PILATE RESUMES THE TRIAL. 355 

Upon resuming the business, lie said to the multitude gathered 
on the pavement, which no doubt was very large, 

Luke xxiii. 14, 15. "Ye have brought this man unto me, 
as one that perverteth the people, and behold, I have examined 
him before you, and have found no fault in this man touching 
those things whereof ye accuse him; no, nor yet Herod; 
for I sent you to him, and nothing worthy of death is done 
unto him." 

Observe, the only charge he specifies is that of perverting 
the people. He says nothing of treason, or forbidding to pay 
tribute to Caesar. He again declares him innocent of the 
offences charged against him by the chief priests, scribes, 
and* elders. He speaks of the examination as having been 
made in their presence, and he declares that his own judgment 
in the matter had been confirmed by Herod. Under these 
circumstances, what honest course was left Pilate but to dis- 
charge him immediately from custody, and allow him to 
resume his former course of life? We are astonished, there- 
fore, at the obliquity of Pilate's moral sense, when he an- 
nounces his purpose to chastise him first, and then release him. 

Luke xxiii. 16. "I will therefore chastise him and release 
him." 

Pilate's motive for this act of injustice, was probably to 
propitiate the Jews, and allay the infuriated passions of the 
priests and rulers. Perhaps he had brought himself to believe 
that it was an act of lenity to inflict chastisement, if he might 
thereby save life. 

But such a course was utterly unworthy of a man invested 
with judicial power, even without any other authority. But he 
was the governor. He had a military force at his command, 
sufficiently ample to protect himself, and enforce his decisions. 
He knew perfectly well that the charge of seditious conduct in 
Galilee was entirely groundless ; for who could know better 
than Herod- whether the charge was true? Had Herod thought 
the other charge of taking upon himself the title of king of the 
Jews worthy of consideration, who would have been more ready 
than he to punish the assumption? His father, Herod the 
Great, fearing lest his royal pretensions should be interfered 
with, some thirty years before, had ordered the massacre of the 
children of Bethlehem and its neighbourhood, on the report of 
the birth of the king of the Jews at that place. Matt. 
chap. ii. Yet Herod had ridiculed the idea, in a way that 
reflected strongly upon the high priests. The mockery of the 
accused was a mockery of them, the accusers.- Pilate under- 
stood from what Herod did, Herod's opinion of what he, Pilate, 
ought to do. 



356 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

. Yet he proposes to punish a man because he is falsely 
accusedj and to turn upon him the indignation which was due 
to his accusers. But the accusers were powerful, bold, im- 
placable in their hatred, and capable of inspiring Pilate with 
fear. He knew they would not consent to an entire justi- 
fication, but he thought this smaller injustice, as it seemed to 
him, would appease them. He feared to irritate the priests, 
and scribes, and rulers, by refusing everything, and hoped to 
make them relax, by ordering chastisement instead of death. 
But he was mistaken. This unjust condescension showed his 
weakness and his fears, of which the priests and scribes took 
advantage. 

The bad example of Herod was probably injurious to Pikte. 
He understood from Herod's conduct that he regarded the Lord 
Jesus as a visionary king or a madman, and therefore not worthy 
of serious consideration. This led him, Pilate, to believe, per- 
haps, that it was a case in which he was not called upon to be 
absolutely and inflexibly just. Herod had been guilty of injus- 
tice in exposing an innocent person to derision, and Pilate 
thought, perhaps, that he might with as good reason commit an 
injustice of another kind. 

Matt, xxvii. 15. "Now at that feast, the governor was 
wont to release unto the people," 

Mark xv. 6. "One prisoner, whomsoever they desired." 

Matt, xxvii. 16. "And they had then a notable prisoner 
called Barabbas," 

Mark xv. 7, 8. "Which lay bound with them, that had 
made insurrection with him, who had committed murder in the 
insurrection in the city, Luke xxiii. 19, and the multitude cry- 
ing aloud, began to desire him to do as he had ever done unto 
them." 

The origin of this custom is uncertain. Probably it was very 
remote. Some suppose it was founded on the delivery of the 
people from Egyptian bondage. Others refer it to the deliver- 
ance from the exterminating angel on the night of the first pass- 
over. Others, still, suppose this custom was of Roman origin, 
and they refer to IAvy, book v., c. 13, to prove that during the 
Lectisternia all prisoners in Rome were freed from their bonds. 
But this custom required the release of only one prisoner, and 
was probably of Jewish origin. 

We observe that, according to Matthew, xxvii. 15, it was a 
favour shown to the people, not to the rulers. The people had 
the choice, and as Mark, xv. 6, says, they might choose whom- 
soever they desired. Hence, the priests and elders, knowing 
that the privilege of choice was not theirs, but that of the 
public generally, were obliged to use persuasion with the people 



pilate's desire to release jesus. 35T 

not to ask . the release of Jesus. Matt, xxvii. 20. We may 
infer, however, that the custom had not the force of a law, 
because in this instance Pilate, as we shall soon see, restricted 
them to a choice between two persons, although we know that 
there were other persons in prison «at that time. Therefore, 
I after the Redeemer had been sent back to Pilate by Herod, 
and Pilate had called the chief priests, rulers, and people 
together, with allusion to this custom which they had men- 
tioned, Pilate said: 

John xviii. 39. " Ye have a custom that I should release 
one unto you at the passover ; will ye therefore that I release 
unto you the king of the Jews?" 

This question was prompted by Pilate's desire. According 
to Matt, xxvii. 17, he put the question in another form: " Whom 
will ye that I release unto you, Barabbas, or Jesus who is called 
Christ?" It is probable he put the question in both forms. 
But in neither form was it according to the custom as Mark 
stated it. Luke, xxiii. 17, informs us, that of necessity Pilate 
must release one person unto them at the feast, and we must 
either suppose that Pilate was disposed to disregard the law to 
some extent, or that the law was binding upon him only so far 
as to require the release of one person, without giving the 
people the absolute right to designate the person as Mark 
states it. 

Let us go back now to the proposition of Pilate to inflict 
chastisement upon Jesus, and then to release him. Perhaps as 
some have supposed, Pilate intended this as a release according 
to the custom; but this opinion does not appear probable. Pi- 
late was desirous to release the Lord upon any terms that would 
satisfy the accusers, and not jeopard his own popularity or 
safety. But whatever his intention was, they paid no regard 
to the proposition. For the next thing done by Pilate was to 
refer to this custom, which was another expedient to avoid con- 
demning the Redeemer to death, as the priests and rulers 
demanded. Perhaps he thought this expedient even preferable 
to the one he first proposed, as it would relieve him from per- 
forming the unjust act of scourging an innocent person, and 
even from passing any judgment against him. 

It is probable, too, that the motive of Pilate, in restricting 
the choice of the people to these two persons, was the belief 
that they could not hesitate between these two, to ask for the 
release of Jesus ; for Barabbas appears to have been one of 
those atrocious criminals for whom the people have no sym- 
pathy. Pilate probably thought that if the people should be 
allowed to make choice generally of any prisoner whom they 
desired, their choice might fall on some other person. Cer- 



358 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

tainly they could not choose Barabbas, the worst of men ! ! 
So thought Pilate, perhaps. But all these expedients failed. 
The chief priests and scribes were inexorable, and their influ- 
ence with the people was sufficient to frustrate all his plans. 
They submitted to this restriction, imposed arbitrarily, per- 
haps, by Pilate, and demanded the release of Barabbas, 
although, perhaps, he was the last man they would have chosen, 
except Jesus. 

Let us pause a moment upon this part of Pilate's conduct. 
In the first place, he knew that the motive of the chief priests 
was envy. Mark xv. 10. He knew it was our Lord's boldness 
in reproving hypocrisy and vice — his disinterestedness, his 
virtue, his reputation, and influence, that provoked them. Yet 
he was willing to abandon to the caprice of the people, a man 
whom he knew to be innocent. He made the people judges in 
his place, and gave them the right to declare which in their 
opinion was the most deserving of their commiseration. Again, 
his proposal was to render to the Lord Jesus, as a favour, that 
which was due to him as a matter of justice — that is, give him 
permission to live as one pardoned from crime. It was a great 
injustice to place on a level a man he had declared to be inno- 
cent, who he knew was persecuted by envy, with an atrocious 
criminal — a murderer ; and by so doing, he prepared the people, 
as far as he could, to regard them both in the same rank. It 
was a manifest contradiction — in one breath to say, I find no 
fault in this man at all — and in the next, to say you have a 
custom that I should release one criminal unto you at this feast, 
will you that I release to you the king of the Jews? Why 
release him as a criminal, if he had committed no crime ? 
Pilate at first, perhaps, hoped the people would accept him, 
without thus putting him in comparison with another, and 
hence, according to John, he proposed him at first alone, calling 
him the king of the Jews, not in mockery, nor in the way of 
derision, but with the design to excite in the people a sense of 
pity, or of respect, or of shame. For opprobrium would fall 
on the nation, if a person avowing himself to be their king, 
should suffer capital punishment for that cause. All these 
shifts were utterly unworthy of Pilate's official character. He 
knew that laws are designed to protect the weak against the 
strong, and to afford an asylum to virtue. 

It was at this stage of the proceedings, while sitting on the 
judgment seat, that his wife sent to him, saying : 

Matt, xxvii. 19. " Have nothing to do with that just man, 
for I have suffered many things this day in a dream, because of 
him." 

By this circumstance we know that the fame of our Lord had 



DREAM OF PILATE'S WIFE. 359 

reached the family of Pilate. How Pilate's wife was informed 
of the business he was engaged about, we do not know, but she 
must have obtained the information that morning ; because the 
Lord had been arrested late in the evening before, and was 
brought to Pilate at an early hour, and probably before she 
arose from her bed. It is not probable she had seen her hus- 
band since the commencement of the business, or she would 
have personally told him her impressions and her fears. Evi- 
dently she was deeply impressed with the urgency of the case, 
or she would not have resolved upon a measure so unusual. 
Unless this disquietude of her mind had been deep, it is not 
probable that she would have had the courage to interfere in 
this public way. 

Some ancient authors have ascribed her dream to Satanic 
influence. Other authors have ascribed it to a Divine influence 
— the design being, as they suppose, to cast an additional 
restraint upon Pilate, as well as to attest publicly in this way 
the sanctity of our Lord's character as a man. The fact, how- 
ever we account for it, is very interesting. Upon these opposite 
suppositions, we may remark the latter is the most probable. 
It would be easy to prove that the mystery of our Lord's person 
was at that time hidden from Satan and evil spirits, although 
they felt his power in a manner they could not resist. We have 
no reason to think that Satan ventured to approach his person, 
or directly to molest him, from the time he departed from him 
after his temptation in the wilderness, Luke iv. 13, until he 
entered into Judas the evening of the betrayal. At that time 
Satan was formally absolved from the restraint our Lord had 
exercised over him, and speedily destroyed his own power by 
accomplishing the death of the Lord Jesus. Heb. ii. 14. Had 
Satan been aware of this consequence of the death he was 
intent upon accomplishing, we may be sure, on the ground of 
our Lord's reasoning in Matt. xii. 24 — 26, he would not have 
instigated Judas, the priests, the Jews, and Pilate, to pursue the 
work of his destruction, and we have also for this opinion the 
authority of the apostle Paul. 1 Cor. ii. 8. The fact is, our 
Lord's Divine nature was hidden from devils, as well as men, 
and with it the mystery of redemption through his death. His 
resurrection from the dead, and his ascension to glory and 
power, revealed this mystery to Satan, but not to the masses of 
mankind, who are still deceived and led captive by Satan at his 
will. Those only of mankind who are taught by the Spirit of 
God, really comprehend this mystery even now. But a time is 
coming when it will be openly revealed to all men, and shall be 
universally acknowledged by all in earth and all under the 
earth, as well as in heaven. Philip, ii. 9 — 11. Those who have 



360 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

entertained the first of these opinions, suppose that Satan began 
to perceive the true character of the Lord and the consequences 
of his death, and therefore adopted this means to prevent it, as 
if he had repented or changed his purpose. But it is more 
reasonable to suppose that Satan, tt as well as Pilate and the 
Jews, regarded him merely as a man, or as a mere creature, not 
as Jehovah incarnate. As to the other supposition, we know 
that in ancient times God imparted knowledge by means of 
dreams — as the examples of Pharaoh, of Nebuchadnezzar, and 
of Joseph, the husband of Mary, attest. 

Whether the dream of Pilate's wife was divinely inspired, we 
are not informed. If God did not produce it, he permitted it, 
and the Evangelist thought it worthy of being recorded. Some 
suppose that the whole scene through which Pilate had passed, 
appeared to her in a vision, and that thus she was apprized of 
the transaction in which her husband was engaged. In this 
way they account for the haste and urgency of the message. 

It is certainly true, that God sometimes warns men who 
are bent on wicked courses, in an extraordinary way. Of this 
Balaam is an example, and it is not incredible that God should 
in this way convey an intimation of the guilt he was incurring 
to Pilate. 

One thing is remarkable — that while every Jew, so far as we 
know, was either an enemy of the Lord, or silent, Pilate and 
his wife were the only persons who publicly proclaimed his 
innocence — a sign, if we may interpret it by the event, that the 
glory of the true religion was departing from Israel for a time 
to rest upon the Gentiles. 

The interruption occasioned by this message to Pilate was 
brief, and we are not informed of its effect on his mind. The 
chief priests and elders employed themselves in the mean time 
in exciting the multitude to the course they desired. 

Matt, xxvii. 20. " They persuaded the multitude that they 
should ask Barabbas and destroy Jesus." 

Pilate was waiting for an answer to his proposition, when he 
was interrupted by the messenger of his wife. Priests, scribes, 
and rulers, a numerous body, took advantage of the interruption 
to influence the people. We must imagine a large concourse 
of people around the judgment seat of Pilate on the pavement. 
This concourse was much larger, probably, than could be ex- 
pected in ordinary times. The occasion of the Passover had 
brought large numbers from all parts of the country, to partici- 
pate in the rites of the festival. We may safely believe many 
of these strangers were present, having been attracted by the 
fame of the Lord Jesus, as well as by the prominence given to 
the matter by the chiefs of the nation. We should try to pic- 



CHOICE OF BARABBAS BY THE PEOPLE. 361 

ture to ourselves the zeal, the activity, the earnestness, of these 
bitter persecutors of the Lord. They are many — they compose 
the highest and most respected classes. Their influence as 
religious teachers with the masses is immense. Instantly they 
scatter among the vast crowd, and, like leaven, pervade and 
affect the whole. The affair had reached its turning point. 
Should the people choose Jesus, their labour was lost. No 
artifice, no calumny, is left untried — not an instant is left 
unemployed — every word uttered in favour of the Lord Jesus 
is rebuked or treated with contempt or scorn— the irresolution, 
the indifference, the inconstancy, the ignorance of any, is turned 
to their own account. 

This scene is a lesson for all ages. How little reliance can 
be put upon the people — how little upon the favour of a judge, 
unless followed by a clear, decisive, and resolute judgment, 
which shall command the silence, if not the respect, of crafty 
calumniators. This very withdrawal of Pilate's attention from 
the matter in hand by his wife's message, brief as it was, 
became the occasion of frustrating the object he had in view, 
through the malice, activity, and artifices of the priests, and 
scribes, and rulers. As soon as Pilate was ready to receive 
their answer, the multitude cried out all at once, saying, 

Luke xxiii. 18. "Away with this man, and release unto 
us Barabbas." 

Pilate was taken in his own artifices. His unjust policy was 
turned against himself. His proposal in a manner bound him 
to abide by the choice of the people. But being still desirous 
to release Jesus, 

Luke xxiii. 20; Matt, xxvii. 21. "He spake to them 
again, and said, Whether of the twain will ye that I release 
unto you?" 

John xviii. 40. "Then cried they all again, not this man, 
but Barabbas." 

It is not probable that Barabbas was present. It is evident 
from the form of this answer that Jesus was, and that he stood 
in their view. Not this man, pointing, as it were, to his per- 
son, and not calling him by name. 

The choice, thus repeated, was conclusive. Barabbas, though 
a robber and a murderer, was to be set free, and allowed once 
more to enter on his course of violence and bloodshed. 

Here let us pause a moment. The choice of Barabbas is 
the most striking instance of popular depravity on record. 
Had Barabbas been the only prisoner in all Judea, why should 
the people ask that he should escape the punishment he so 
fully deserved? He was a seditious person, a robber, a mur- 
derer. But when put in the alternative with one who was well 
46 



362 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

known throughout Judea, Galilee, and all Syria as a benefactor, 
intent on doing good, having, as all acknowledged, the most 
extraordinary powers ever possessed by any of the sons of 
men — who had wrought innumerable miracles of healing, whose 
wisdom, and virtue, and eloquence had elevated him far above 
all their teachers, their choice of Barabbas and rejection of 
Jesus excites our amazement. 

Some have supposed that the name of this atrocious offender 
against the laws of God and of man was really Jesus Barabbas. 
It is a fact also that several ancient MSS., the Armenian trans- 
lation, and a Syrian translation from the Armenian, write his 
name thus. See MUVs New Test., Knapps New Test., G-ries- 
bacKs New Test. The Greek father, Origen, in his exposition 
of the Gospel by Matthew, observes that several MSS. did not 
prefix Jesus to the name Barabbas ; leaving us to infer that the 
greater number did. On this ground many read Matt, xxvii. 17 
thus: "Whom will you that I release unto you, Jesus who is 
called Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?" 

It was very singular that two persons bearing the name 
of Jesus should have been thus contrasted. The word Barab- 
bas, if it has any signification, means "Son of the Father," 
and Jesus, we know, signifies Saviour. Hence that which was 
essential in our Lord, was in name transferred, so to speak, to 
this murderer, as if our Lord had exchanged his name with him 
upon taking his place. 

But if we leave the surface of this transaction, and consider 
the Divine purpose concealed, another vein of reflection is 
opened. There was a needs-be that Christ, the holy and the 
just one, should die, or the whole race of Adam would be con- 
demned to a second death, without hope of redemption. There 
was a needs-be also that Barabbas, a notable sinner, chosen on 
this occasion as the fit representative of the guilty race of our 
first father Adam, should be released instead of Jesus, or we had 
been still captives under condemnation by the Divine justice. 

What Pilate ignorantly did in pairing off the Holy One, the 
true and only begotten Son of the Father, against a robber and 
a murderer, intimates to us what passed in the secret councils of 
the Father, when our fallen race was set in comparison or con- 
trast with his only begotten Son. John iii. 16. 

What the Jewish people did, when they denied the Holy One 
and the Just, and required that he should be put to death, and 
that a murderer should be released to them in his stead, 
teaches us the greatness of God's mercy and love to our race, 
when he delivered his Son for us in our apostasy and crimes. 
See John iii. 16; Rom. viii. 32; v. 8; John xii. 27. 

The Divine mercy of the Father chose us, deserving as we 



BARABBAS. 363 

were of his infinite displeasure, in preference to his own Son, in 
whom he was ever well pleased. He preferred that he should for 
a time lay aside his glory, become incarnate, and be despised 
and rejected, loaded with insults, and reproaches, and stripes, 
and expire on the cross, rather than consent to the punishment 
of mad, ungrateful, impenitent slaves of sin and Satan, who were 
eager to imbrue their hands in the blood of his incarnate Son. 
Equal also was the mercy of God the Son, who laid aside his 
glory, and became incarnate only that he might become a 
victim and a sacrifice for our sins — it being impossible that any 
other victim should stand for them. See Heb. x. 5; and 1 Pet. 
iii. 18. 

If we regard only Pilate and the Jews in this matter, it was 
an awful crime to release Barabbas instead of Jesus; but if we 
look at it as the necessary means appointed by the Divine 
mercy for redeeming the world from the power of Satan, and 
the curse, we see in it the greatest exhibition possible of the 
holiness, justice, and mercy of the Divine government. Had 
God treated sinners of mankind according to their guilt and 
desert, and the innocent according to his innocence, all our 
sins had remained on our own heads, and would continue so to 
remain for ever. But the Holy One and the Just himself bore 
our sins in his own body on the tree, that we being dead to sins, 
should live unto righteousness. By his stripes we are healed. 
1 Pet. ii. 24. 

It is said of Barabbas, that he was a notable offender and a 
prisoner. The substitution of our Lord for such a person, holds 
out a hope of pardon and release to all others, however aggra- 
vated their crimes ; and in the same way, the apostle Paul 
reasons: "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me 
first Jesus Christ might show forth all long-suffering, for a pat- 
tern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life ever- 
lasting." 1 Tim. i. 16. 

Some have found in Barabbas a figure or a representative of 
Adam. Adam was guilty of rebellion, of robbing God of the 
only thing in the earth he had reserved as a sign of his sove- 
reignty, and of destroying his own race; Barabbas was a 
prisoner for the like offences — insurrection or sedition, robbery 
and murder. On the other hand, the Lord Jesus, as the head 
of a new race to be brought into being through his death, is 
elsewhere, Rom. v. 14 ; 1 Cor. xv. 45, put in a parallel with 
the first Adam and his race. The latter cannot live and rise to 
a new life without the former, and the former cannot render 
life to the latter, but by consenting to die in his place. Rela- 
tions like these, in fact, existed between Adam and Barabbas 
on the one hand, and the Lord Christ on the other. The Divine 



364 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

mercy required the choice which was actually made. Men and 
devils, in their madness and ignorance, concurred in bringing 
it about; but the love, and wisdom, and mercy of God con- 
trolled both to the accomplishment of his own designs. Thus 
all things unite — the crime, the mystery — the reasons, the 
motives. 

The choice of Barabbas by the people brought the question 
back to where it was before; but with an increase of difficulty 
to Pilate. It was now no longer possible for him to release 
Jesus under the custom; yet there he stood bound. Still 
wavering and reluctant, he hit upon a still more objectionable 
expedient, that of consulting the people as to what he should do 
with the prisoner. 

Matt, xxvii. 22; Mark xv. 12. "He said unto them, 
What will ye then that I shall do with Jesus, which is called 
Christ — with him whom ye call king of the Jews — seeing ye 
have chosen Barabbas to be released unto you?" 

It is remarkable that Pilate in no instance said of the Lord 
that he claimed or pretended to be a king, or that he affected 
to pass for the Messiah. He was very exact in his expressions, 
and Divine Providence so ordered it, that he should avoid all 
mistakes on this head. Yet, on the other hand, Pilate does 
really and seriously ascribe to the Lord these characters or 
qualities, in his intercourse with the priests and people, so 
that by the very course of the proceedings, and the form of 
his judgment, the Jews did demand the crucifixion of their 
King and Messiah. He gave him this title also in the epigraph 
or superscription of the cross, and refused to alter a word of it, 
though the chief priests besought him to do so. " Write not 
'the king of the Jews,' " but that he said, "I am king of the 
Jews." The priests desired Pilate to write what was not true, 
and Pilate firmly refused to do so. Yet Pilate did ascribe to 
him his true character repeatedly, and in this character, the 
Jews invoked upon him a punishment unknown to their laws. 
Pilate all along appears to have understood that the royalty 
he claimed was connected with the religious expectations and 
hopes of the Jews, and therefore was not more obnoxious to 
punishment than were their own religious expectations and 
desires. But to resume. The people, thus appealed to, as if 
their wishes were to be consulted in a matter of official judg- 
ment — 

Mark xv. 13; Matt, xxvii. 22; Luke xxiii. 21. "Cried 
out again," "and all say unto him, Crucify him, crucify him, 
let him be crucified." 

How strange, how unnatural, that they should desire the 
infliction of a barbarous punishment, unknown to their laws, 



PREDICTION OF THE MYSTERY OF THE CROSS. 365 

which could never have been practised among them, had they 
not been a subject people. Pilate must have been greatly sur- 
prised by these boisterous, unnatural cries of the people. But 
he had exposed himself to the embarrassment their demand 
caused him, by putting the question to them, and by coupling 
with him Barabbas, who had been really guilty of three crimes 
which the Romans punished by crucifixion, especially when 
the offender was not a Roman citizen. Thus the imprudence 
of Pilate, and the crime of the priests and the people, pre- 
pared the way to the mystery of the cross, which, up to this 
moment, was so concealed and, to all human appearances, so 
incredible; although the Lord himself had predicted it just 
before the close of his ministry in the most express terms, and 
had alluded to it, in a way which is now very intelligible to us, 
soon after the commencement of his public ministry: "He that 
taketh not up his cross and followeth after me, is not worthy of 
me," Matt. x. 38; "If any will come after me, let him deny 
himself, and take up his cross and follow me," Matt. xvi. 24; 
"And whoever doth not bear his cross and come after me, can- 
not be my disciple." Luke xiv. 27; see also Matt, xxiii. 34. 
These expressions show that the manner of his death was ever 
present to his mind. Yet there was nothing of this kind pre- 
dicted in the Scriptures, which shows in a more clear light that 
our Lord's prophecy was Divine. Before he left Galilee, he 
predicted his crucifixion in the plainest language, so that his 
disciples could no longer misapprehend his words, although they 
could not believe them. "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem, and 
the Son of Man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and 
unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and 
they shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, 
and to crucify," &c. Matt. xx. 18, 19. No crime was pun- 
ished by the law of Moses, as we have said, by crucifixion, and 
the observation of John upon these words of the Jews is impor- 
tant: "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death, that 
the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled signifying by what death 
he should die." John xviii. 31, 32. The Romans, without 
knowing the prophecies or the prediction of Jesus, had made 
the necessary preparation for the accomplishment of both. 
Pilate, still unwilling to yield to the popular cry, expostulated, 
though feebly, instead of resolving to act firmly, relying on his 
own judgment and authority, Luke xxiii. 22, and the third time 
asked, " Why, what evil hath he done ? I have found no cause 
of death in him." 

Had Pilate been merely a witness, it would have been suffi- 
cient to have given the testimony. But he ivas a judge, and 
his duty included much more. 



366 NOTES ON SCMPTUKE. 

He was fluctuating between crime and virtue, through the 
desire to conciliate the passions of wicked, envious men, with his 
duty. A man may expect to lose the aid of his conscience, 
when he so far forgets its obligations as to deliberate whether 
he will obey or disregard its dictates. His disquietude foretold 
plainly enough his fall. Even then he had made up his mind 
to do an act of gross injustice ; for he adds, 

Luke xxiii. 22. " I will therefore chastise him and let him 

What ! chastise a man in whom he found no fault at all, as 
he had declared a short time before ! True, he now modifies 
the expression by saying, "I have found no cause of death in 
him." Whether this change of expression was designed and 
significant or not, we do not know. Perhaps he aimed to save 
himself from the manifest contradiction of proposing to inflict 
even the smaller punishment on one so entirely innocent of all 
crime. But what we ought particularly to remark, is the 
imprudence of Pilate, in proposing to inflict the punishment of 
scourging, without knowing that the enemies of the Lord would 
be satisfied with it. Yet he binds himself to this extent, while 
he leaves them altogether free. He was weak and cowardly to 
punish at all; and having inflicted the punishment proposed, 
we should have no reason to suppose he would be firm enough 
to discharge him. He showed his fear by yielding at all. He 
ought to have known the workings of corrupt human nature too 
well, to suppose that the furious passions of the priests and 
rulers and the populace would stop precisely at the point he 
should fix. The scourging which usually preceded capital 
punishment among the Romans, was an incitement to the 
people to persist in their demand. Accordingly, we find that 
the announcement of this purpose exasperated the multitude 
yet more, and perceiving the power they had acquired over 
Pilate by their vociferous demands, they resolved to exercise 
it ; for as Mark and Luke both inform us, 

Maek xv. 14; Luke xxiii. 23. "They then cried out the 
more exceedingly, and were instant with loud voices, requiring 
that he should be crucified. And the voices of them and of 
the chief priests prevailed." 

Had Pilate been a just and a holy man, God would not have 
allowed him to be brought into so perilous a condition, which 
is as much as to say that he would not have been allowed 
to become the Governor of Judea at that time. It may be that 
much better men than Pilate coveted the office, which Tiberius 
Caesar, the Roman Emperor, conferred upon him. If the 
affairs of government were managed then as they are now, 
we can hardly doubt that the office of Governor of Judea was 



PILATE WASHES HIS HANDS OE CHRIST'S BLOOD. 367 

greatly coveted and sought after by many who looked upon 
Pilate's success with envy. Yet when we look upon these 
times in the light of the Scriptures, and of those Divine 
purposes which were then to be fulfilled, we can see mercy in 
the failure of Pilate's competitors, and judgment upon Pilate. 
There was a needs-be that Christ should suffer at that time, by 
wicked hands, and it was so ordered in the providence of God, 
that the voluntary wickedness of Pilate and of that generation 
of Jews should be the instrument. 

Matt, xxvii. 24. "When Pilate saw that he could not 
prevail, but rather that a tumult was made, he took water and 
washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent 
of the blood of this just person: see ye to it." 

Pilate resorted to this ceremony, probably while sitting on 
the judgment seat on the pavement in the open air, and of 
course in the presence of an immense multitude of Jews from 
all parts of the country. It is computed, by some authors, that 
at the festival of the Passover, there were three millions 
of people in and near the city of Jerusalem. See Vossius' 
Harmony, and Josephus. The object of the ceremony thus 
publicly performed was to clear himself of the guilt of the 
unjust and cruel judgment he was about to render. That such 
a ceremony had long been in practice among the Jews is 
proved by Ps. xxvi. 6, where David says, "I will wash my 
hands in innocency." See also Deut. xxi. 6. We also use a 
similar expression, which we derive from the same source. 
The ceremony was perfectly natural. It was a symbolical 
action, which was well calculated, under the circumstances, to 
make a deep impression. Every bystander on that occasion, 
though they might not have heard the words of Pilate, perfectly 
comprehended the meaning of this action. It is said that such 
a custom prevailed among the Greeks and Romans also. It is 
founded upon the idea, that sin and guilt is a pollution, which 
needs to be removed by a washing. It is not important to 
inquire whether Pilate had in his mind the Jewish or Roman 
custom. But how strange that a judicial officer, and a governor 
attended by an armed force, should resort to such a means to 
be rid of the guilt of an official act which he was about to 
perform, as "if such a ceremony could prevent a stain of the 
guilt of an unjust judgment. While it convicted Pilate himself 
of the most criminal inconsistency, it was a most remarkable 
testimony to our Lord's innocence. We read nothing like 
it in history. Pilate is not content to declare several times 
publicly, in spite of calumnious accusations persevered in 
before the people, that he found no fault in him. Nor is 
it enough in his judgment to say in figurative language, that 



368 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

he washes his hands of the business — that he takes no part in 
the accusations made against the Lord Jesus, nor in his death. 
He determines to perform a public ceremony, while sitting 
on his tribunal, in the view of the immense multitude gathered 
before it, consisting no doubt, as we have intimated, in part of 
strangers, whom the feast had brought to Jerusalem, as an 
attestation which could not be obscured or perverted ; and as a 
proof to all time of the injustice of the act he himself was 
about to perform. He therefore took water, and probably in 
the most solemn and impressive manner he was capable of, 
washed his hands before the multitude, saying audibly, " I am 
innocent of the blood of this just one: ye shall see," for such 
is the exact meaning. 

If we reflect upon this transaction, it will appear very extraor- 
dinary. Nothing short of the wisdom and power of God could 
thus connect with the death of the Lord Jesus so many justifica- 
tory circumstances, without making them avail to his deliver- 
ance — circumstances which proclaim in the most impressive form 
his more than human virtue, and yet without preventing the 
accomplishment of those prophecies, which foretold that he 
should be numbered with transgressors, and be treated as though 
he were one. The whole proceeding, taken together, was a most 
solemn acquittal of all crime, followed by a punishment which 
was inflicted only upon great malefactors. 

Matt, xxvii. 25. "Then answered all the people and said, 
His blood be on us, and on our children." 

These words were uttered in answer to those of Pilate, in 
which he vainly attempted to cast on the people the responsi- 
bility of the unjust act he was about to perform. Pilate had 
intimated to them his belief, that they should some day suffer 
for their cruel and unjust conduct, and the meaning of their 
response may be thus expressed: "Your fear does not affect 
us; we have no fear that the blood of this man, whom you call 
just, will be demanded of us or our posterity. We willingly 
consent to bear all the vengeance which the Divine Justice shall 
see proper to inflict. We consent to be responsible for what- 
ever injustice there may be, and to bear the punishment of it." 
There was, however, a meaning in these words which the blinded 
multitude did not intend, and which, nevertheless, has been ful- 
filled in respect to many of that race, and will yet be fulfilled 
in respect to the entire nation. " The blood of Christ cleanseth 
from all sin. It speaketh better things than that of Abel," 
Heb. xii. 24; and this imprecation, uttered in the spirit of hate, 
at that time, will hereafter be uttered in the spirit of mourning 
and bitterness, and be answered with the greatest of blessings. 
Zech xii. 10. 



JESUS SCOURGED. 369 

Mark xv. 15; Luke xxiii. 24, 25. "And so Pilate having 
resolved to content the people, gave sentence that it should be 
as they required, and he released unto them him that for 
sedition and murder was cast into prison, whom they had 
desired.'* 

Thus ended all Pilate's efforts to reconcile the demands of 
justice and his own conscience with his fears. With washed 
hands and a polluted mouth, he sends Jesus to the cross, while 
pronouncing him innocent ; because he had not the firmness to 
resist men whom he contemned in his . heart, and on other 
occasions had treated with great indignity. See note, Pict. 
Bib., Matt, xxvii. 2, p. 73; John xviii. 12, p. 237. Yet Pilate 
has not been without followers in this particular, many of whom 
do not deserve to be compared with him in courage or solicitude 
to save the innocent. 

Johx xix. 1. "Then Pilate took Jesus and scourged him." 

John is the only Evangelist who states this fact in positive 
and direct terms; although Matthew and Mark do so incident- 
ally. Matt, xxvii. 26 ; Mark xv. 15. Luke records merely the 
words of Pilate, "I will therefore chastise him and let him go," 
without saying that this declaration of Pilate was executed. 
Luke xxiii. 16. But John, who states the fact positively, enters 
into no detail; yet insinuates that it was extremely cruel, inas- 
much as it was done with the hope of softening the hard hearts 
of the enemies of Jesus, and to influence them not to demand 
his death. The Romans scourged with rods, or with whips, or 
thongs, which were often armed with little bones or knots. The 
term used by Matthew and Mark to signify scourge, is derived 
from the Latin flagellum, from which we get the word flagella- 
tion. Flagellum is derived from flagrum, a whip, or from flagro, 
to burn, on account of the burning sensation it occasions.* 
There can be no doubt, from the terms used by Matthew, Mark, 
and John, that it was very cruel, and a literal fulfilment of the 
prophecy of Isaiah, liii. 5, 10, and 1. 5, 6 : " He was wounded for 
our transgressions, and bruised for our iniquities ; the chastise- 

* The Roman method of scourging differed from the Jewish in several 
respects. The Jewish was limited to forty stripes, from which it was the 
practice to deduct one, either from motives of humanity- or through fear of 
mistake. Deut. xxv. 3; 2 Cor. xi. 24. The Romans varied in the number. 
The Jews scourged with loro vitulino, a leather thong simply, according to the 
Rabbins. The Romans used rods, whips, or thongs (aculeatis flagellis,) as stated 
above. They also bound the person doomed to be scourged, to a column, hav- 
ing first entirely denuded the body, abducite hunc intro atque astringite ad colum- 
nam fortiter. Plaut. Bacch. Act iv., Sc. vii., Cicero Orat. pro Rabirio. See 
John Leusderi's Philologus Hebrceo mixtus, Dissert. 49th, part 2d. Some authors 
have undertaken to say how many blows were inflicted by Pilate's command on 
our blessed Lord; but they can have no means of knowing anything about it. 
See Vossius' Harmony, lib. ii. cap. v. g 17. 

47 



370 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

ment of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are 
healed. . . . . Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him," &c. 
These expressions, which are not exaggerated, signify more 
than we can imagine. 

Scourging with the Romans was sometimes used as a species 
of torture. It was resorted to sometimes in order to extort a 
confession, as we learn by Acts xxii. 24. In the Apocryphal 
book called the Wisdom of Solomon, chap. ii. 19, we have some 
evidence of the use of torture among the Jews for the same 
purpose. "Let us examine him with despitefulness and tor- 
ture, that we may know his weakness and prove his patience. 
Let us condemn him with a shameful death ; for by his own 
sayings he shall be respected." 

There can be no reasonable doubt that the bodily sufferings 
of our Lord were inflicted through the instigation of Satan. 
From the ending of the temptation in the wilderness, before 
our Lord entered upon his public ministry, until the night in 
which he was betrayed, Satan was like that unclean spirit, dis- 
lodged from his house, mentioned in Matt. xii. 43; see verses 
27 to 29 also. Without penetrating the mystery of our Lord's 
person, he felt his own power crippled even by the Lord's 
presence. He could not resist his word. Observe his lan- 
guage during the temptation: "If thou be the Son of God," 
(or a son of God.) Matt. iv. 3, 6; Luke iv. 3, 9. Had he 
really known the Lord Jesus to be Jehovah incarnate, his 
Creator and the Lord of heaven and earth, it is incredible that 
he even should have approached him in the way of temptation ; 
and although he spoke to him, as it were, doubtingly, as though 
he might be the Son, or a son of God, we have no reason to 
suppose he understood "the Son of God" to be God himself in 
the person of the Son, the second person of the Trinity, but 
rather a mere man, whom God had wonderfully favoured. The 
mystery of the incarnation was hidden from him, as well as 
from all created beings. This mystery was not disclosed until 
the resurrection. Rom. i. 4. Being ignorant, therefore, of the 
Divine nature of the Lord, when he was liberated from the 
restraint thus laid upon him, he was active in the infliction of 
sufferings, having already found that temptations by way of 
allurement could not influence him. It is remarkable, that 
although Satan was free to compass the death of the Lord 
Jesus, yet there was still one restriction laid upon him. For 
after he had entered into Judas, the Lord said to him, "that 
thou doest, do quickly." This permission gave him no power 
to prolong the sufferings of the Lord ; for there was a necessity 
that he should suffer at that particular time. 

What an exhibition this transaction gives us of the love of 



THE COHORTS. 371 

God, and of the Son, in thus submitting to be treated as a con- 
demned and guilty slave ! And what an idea it affords of the 
severity of the Divine justice ! How can the impenitent sinner 
escape this justice, if he treads under foot the blood of Christ 
as a common thing ! What a commentary also is it upon the 
words of Paul in Heb. xii. 6: "For whom the Lord loveth he 
chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth," none 
excepted, not even his only begotten; who, though without sin, 
was not without chastisement. Fear not then the rod, but fear 
lest you may not be reckoned a son. So thought the apostles ; 
for when they were beaten by command of the Jewish council, 
they departed rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer 
shame for the name of Jesus. 

Matt, xxvii. 27; Mark xv. 16. "Then the soldiers of the 
governor took Jesus and led him away into the common hall, 
called Praetorium, and they called together the whole band." 

The place from which they led him was the judgment seat on 
the pavement, where he had stood bound, in the view of Pilate 
and the multitude, without saying one word. The Praetorium, 
you remember, was Pilate's residence, and near by. The com- 
mon hall was within the Praetorium. Some suppose that this 
expression should be translated into the court of the Praetorium. 
The meaning is, the soldiers of the governor led Jesus from 
the place where he was standing, before the palace of the 
governor, into an inner court, and into the palace itself. It 
appears from these verses that only a part, probably a small 
part, of the soldiers were present on the pavement at this time. 
The whole band here spoken of was a Roman cohort, which 
contained several companies, each consisting of one hundred 
men. Cornelius, mentioned Acts x. 1, was a centurion, or cap- 
tain of one hundred men, in a cohort called the Italian. Julius, 
mentioned Acts xxvii. 1, was a centurion, or captain of one 
hundred men, in another cohort, called the cohort of Augustus. 
The officer who commanded the whole cohort, was called a tri- 
bune. The number of men composing a cohort is not certain. 
In fact, it was not fixed, nor always the same. Lipsius says 
the number was about five hundred and twenty. 

The whole band or cohort having been called together, the 
tribune, of course, was at their head. We are to understand 
then, that the things next mentioned by the Evangelists were 
done by the tribune and the cohort, and the place where they 
were gathered must have been of considerable size. We must 
not confound this cohort with another which was assigned to 
guard the temple. This cohort depended upon the priests and 
Levites, to whose immediate command it was subject, but, of 
course, under the control of the governor. It was to this 



372 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

cohort Pilate referred, Matt, xxvii. 65, when he said to the 
priests, " Ye have a watch," that is, a military guard, as is clear 
by Matt, xxviii. 12. It was this cohort also, or a part* of it, 
which attended Judas to the garden of Gethsemane, and who 
were struck to the ground by the word of Jesus. John xviii. 3 — 6. 
The centurion spoken of in Matt, xxvii. 54, probably belonged 
to the cohort which was attached to the palace of Pilate, for 
the defence of the city, and not to that which was assigned to 
the temple. 

It is not certain that all the soldiers did within the court of 
the palace, was done by the express order of Pilate, or within 
his view. We cannot doubt, however, that he permitted it, with 
the design to avoid condemning the Lord to death. He thought, 
probably, that the severity of the scourging would move the 
people to pity, and that they might, of their own accord, exon- 
erate him from proceeding further. 

If we suppose that these cruelties were inflicted by the tribune 
and his soldiers, without the express command of Pilate, what a 
picture it gives us of their barbarity ! They had not the mo- 
tives of the priests to incite them— they felt no envy. Nothing 
short of the satanic love of inflicting pain and torture could 
have influenced them; and there can be no doubt that they were 
instigated to these excesses of cruelty by Satan. But what we 
are especially to notice is, that in this part of the transaction 
the Jews had no share. It was the crime of the Gentiles. Yet 
it was the mad fury of the Jews that led to these excesses ; for 
Pilate, had he been left to himself, would have let him go. Acts 
iii. 13. 

But observe, this was but a repetition, though with greater 
severity, of the indignities practised but a few hours before, in 
the High Priest's palace, by the cohort attached to the temple ; 
for we are told (John xviii. 22) that one of the officers struck 
Jesus with the palm of his hand, for which act Jesus reproved 
him, and afterwards the men that held him (Luke xxii. 63) 
mocked him, and some (Mark xiv. 65) began to spit on him ; 
that they spit in his face, and buffeted him (Matt. xxvi. 67,) 
and then blindfolded him, and struck him in the face (Luke 
xxii. 64,) and in derision said: " Prophesy unto us, thou Christ; 
who is he that smote thee?" Matt. xxvi. 68. And many other 
things they said blasphemously, Luke xxii. 65, and even the 
servants did strike him with the palms of their hands. Mark 
xiv. 65. If we attentively consider the narrative, we may find 
for these indignities practised by the soldiers attached to the 
temple, the servile disposition to curry favour with the priests, 
which cannot be supposed to have influenced the soldiers attached 
to the palace of Pilate. In fine, we shall search in vain for any 



INDIGNITIES AND CRUELTIES PUT UPON JESUS. 373 

explanation of the scene in the court of the Prretorium, but 
the instigation of Satan. The inhumanity, the insolence, their 
insulting conduct against a man whom the governor had declared 
innocent, repeatedly, in the most solemn manner, were the 
promptings of Satan, and designed to extort from him some 
sign or mark, by which that foul spirit could know who he was. 
It was inexplicable to him, that he had so suddenly acquired 
the ascendency, as he supposed, over that mysterious man, 
whose very word had hitherto deprived him of all his power. 
We will now proceed with the narrative. 

The whole cohort- having been assembled in the court, Matt. 
xxvii. 28 ; John xix. 2, " They stripped him, [of his clothing] 
and put on him a purple [or scarlet] robe or mantle." 

The Evangelists use different words to express the colour of 
the robe; but there is no greater difference between them, than 
between the words red and reddish. Purple is the more 
sombre, and scarlet the more lively colour. Some suppose 
that what we call crimson is the same colour which is here 
called purple. 

Here, for the second time, we see Jesus, the Lord of glory, 
dressed in purple by men who made a mockery of his royalty. 
Herod and the Romans unite in this mockery of the King of 
kings, whose royalty both Jews and Gentiles shall one day 
acknowledge. Philip, ii. 10. 

We see here, that these brutal soldiers take from him, and 
put upon him what they please. They strip him of his 
clothing, to increase his suffering under their scourging. He 
endures all without uttering a word, as though he were insen- 
sible. Read Psalm civ. 2 ; Luke ix. 29 ; Matt. xvii. 2, in this 
connection. 

Matt, xxvii. 29. " And when they had plaited a crown of 
thorns, they put it on his head, and a reed in his right hand, 
and they bowed the knee before him." 

It did not satisfy the cruelty of the soldiers to make a crown 
of a single thorny branch, but they interwove several branches, 
arranging the points of the thorns, it is supposed, so as to press 
upon different parts of the head. Nor was it enough simply to 
place a crown of ignominy and pain on his head, so as to rest 
there; but, as we may infer from the inhumanity of the soldiers, 
who affected to join cruelty to derision and mockery, they 
forced it on his head, and then smote him on the head thus 
covered, as we shall soon learn, Matt, xxvii. 30, with the reed 
they had placed in his right hand as a sceptre. 

We are reminded by this passage of the- primeval curse. 
God said to Adam, "Cursed is the ground for thy sake; thorns 
also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee." Gen. iii. 17. 



374 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

The thorn and thistle are the exterior emblems of the curse, 
and thus regarded, they cover, as with a veil, things much more 
terrible — all the consequences of the curse — sorrow, suffering, 
toil, death. Lamech, the father of Noah, seems thus to have 
understood it, as we may infer from Gen. v. 29. But Noah, 
though his name signifies rest or comfort, did not make the 
earth less fertile in thorns, nor relieve man of the labour neces- 
sary to remove them. In Christ alone will the curse be 
removed, and it pleased the Almighty, not only to bruise him, 
but to pierce him with this emblem of the curse, which made 
Grotius say, " The curse began in thorns, and ended in thorns, 
but with the lily in the midst of the thorns." See G-rotius on 
Matt, xxvii. 29. 

When the soldiers crowned the Lord with thorns, they 
crowned him with the emblem or symbol of the curse, so that 
Christ, as the second Adam, bore the curse pronounced against 
the first Adam. 

Mark xv. 19; Matt, xxvii. 29, 30; John xix. 3. "And 
they worshipped him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, king of 
the Jews ! and they smote him with their hands, and they spit 
upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head." 

There never has been, and there never will be, another 
example of such indignities borne with such patience. But 
nothing less could expiate and remove the curse. The Lord of 
glory, by whose power and providence the universe is sustained, 
silently and meekly as a lamb, bore the mockery of the licen- 
tious soldiery, as the appointed means of redemption. For 
says the prophet Isaiah, liii. 3, 4, "He is despised and rejected 
of men — a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief — and we 
hid, as it were, our faces from him. He was despised, and we 
esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs, and car- 
ried our sorrows. Yet we did esteem him stricken and smitten 
of God, and afflicted." This transaction in the court of the 
palace of Pilate, and that which had occurred a few hours 
before in the palace of the high priest, were the fulfilment of 
Isa. 1. 6: "I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to 
them that plucked off the hair. I hid not my face from shame 
and spitting." 

John xix. 4. "Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith 
unto them, Behold, I bring him forth unto you, that ye may 
know that I find no fault in him." 

The context shows that Pilate went out of the Psetorium to 
the judgment seat, a little in advance of Jesus, having given 
orders to the soldiers to follow him with their prisoner. As 
soon as he had uttered the words just quoted, the Lord Jesus 
came within view, and Pilate added, "Behold the man," an 



JESUS AGAIN PRESENTED BY PILATE TO THE PEOPLE. 375 

expression much of the same import as "here he comes," or 
"here he is." But why should Pilate bring him forth for the 
reason he gave? We suppose that, according to the usual 
course of proceeding in such cases, the soldiers took the con- 
demned person from the court of the palace directly to the 
place of execution ; but this course was departed from by Pilate 
for the reason he gave. We must bear it in mind, that Pilate 
had already given sentence that it should be as they required, 
Luke xxiii. 24; and the scourging, and other cruelties inflicted 
in the court, were preparatory to the execution. Yet Pilate, as 
if the matter were still depending, interrupts the execution, in 
the way mentioned in this verse, and the sense of his words to 
the people may be expressed thus: "Although I have given 
sentence that this man should be crucified, and the soldiers 
have, by scourging, begun the execution of that sentence, yet, 
instead of sending him to the place of crucifixion, I bring him 
forth again to you, that you may know that I am most firmly 
persuaded of his innocence." He hoped that the inhumanity 
of the soldiers would excite their compassion. Pilate, in fact, 
employed every means to save Jesus, except one, and that was 
firmness, founded upon the purpose to prefer justice to every 
other interest or motive, without which even firmness can effect 
but little. 

John xix. 5. "Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of 
thorns and the purple robe" — 

And, as there is reason to believe, bearing in his hand the 
reed. The purple robe was put upon him to deride his royalty, 
and that he still wore. Why not, then, the reed, seeing that 
had been put into his hands for the same purpose? 

John xix. 5. "And Pilate said to them, Behold the man!" 

We may regard this act of Pilate as the presentation to the 
people of the true Messiah they had so long expected — the 
most august function possible for any man in any station to 
perform. Yet a Messiah already rejected by the people whom 
he came to bless and to save ; and through their means crowned 
with a diadem of thorns, livid with bruises, bearing in his hand 
a feeble reed, and covered by a purple robe, yet more deeply 
coloured with his own blood. 

John xix. 6. "When therefore the chief priests and the 
officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify, crucify." 

Observe here a peculiarity. Before the scourging, the priests 
and rulers were successful in inciting the people boisterously to 
demand the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus, Luke xxiii. 21; Matt, 
xxvii. 20, 22; but on this occasion it was only- the priests and 
their underlings who cried out. The priests knew the effect 
such a sight would be likely to produce upon the people, and 



376 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

they cried out the instant Pilate presented Jesus to them in 
such a pitiable condition, and excited those in their service to 
do so, probably in order to prevent the people from a moment's 
reflection, and to extinguish by their cruel cries any rising emo- 
tion of pity. 

John xix. 6. " Pilate then saith unto them, Take ye him 
and crucify him, for I find no fault in him." 

We are not to understand these words as a permission seri- 
ously granted the Jews to inflict that punishment. It was 
rather a reproach of their mad obstinacy. As if he had said, 
" Crucify him yourselves, if you dare to do so* but do not 
expect me to be the minister of your passions. You persist in 
saying that he is a guilty man, but you do not prove it. I 
have examined him in private and in public, and I find him 
innocent. I have already done too much. I have conde- 
scended to the utmost limits possible, and I am resolved to go 
no further." But Pilate, if such was his meaning, did not 
know his own heart. His conscience had too often suffered 
violence to retain its authority. He should have listened to 
its first dictates, then it would have served him at the critical 
moment. 

We observe here another reiteration of the innocence of the 
Lord Jesus by Pilate, and that, too, after he had delivered 
him to be crucified. The providence of God so appointed it, 
in order to remove every pretext to future calumnies. The 
cross of Christ must not be dishonoured, even in the view of 
men, with the least suspicion,, much less with the stain of 
personal guilt; for then it could not have been regarded as a 
voluntary sacrifice for the sins of others. The Evangelists 
who record these facts, wrote while they were fresh in the 
public mind, and they attested the truth of their words with 
their lives. The malice of the Jews was unable to invent any- 
thing to the contrary, which bore even the slightest proba- 
bility of truth. 

John xix. 7. " The Jews answered him: We have a law, 
and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the 
Son of God." 

Perhaps this verse should be read with an emphasis on the 
pronouns we and our. As if they had said, " However inno- 
cent he may appear to you, when judged according to your 
law, you should remember that we also have a law, binding 
upon him and all Jews, which we, as Jews, chiefly regard in 
this business, and which you also would be justified in regarding, 
by which he ought to die, and therefore it can be no crime or 
fault in you to adjudge him to be guilty of death." 

Thus considered, this answer is an argument designed to 



THE JEWS ATTEMPT TO REMOVE PILATE'S SCRUPLES. 377 

remove the scruples of Pilate, inasmuch as they alleged the 
existence of a law which would justify the judgment they 
demanded. But if such was their design, the argument had 
not the effect they desired upon the mind of Pilate, but rather 
the contrary. This they did not foresee. Yet Pilate, being a 
heathen and unacquainted with their laws, could not judge of 
them for himself, and he could not allow it to influence his 
judgment without consenting to be the instrument of their 
passions. But what was this law to which they referred ? 

It is very certain they had no law which appointed cruci- 
fixion as the penalty or punishment of any crime, but this was 
the kind of punishment which they required. This they knew 
full well, and therefore they were guarded in their phraseology. 
For observe, they did not say, " by our law he ought to be 
crucified," but "he ought to die, because he made himself the 
Son of God." 

It is not clear what idea the Jews intended to impress upon 
the mind of Pilate, by this accusation, but it is very certain, 
from the discourses of the Lord Jesus, enforced as they were by 
his miracles, that they understood him to claim Sonship in the 
proper sense, and equality with the Father. This is proved by 
John v. 18. "Therefore the Jews sought to kill him, because 
he not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God 
was his Father, making himself equal with God." In this 
particular, the Jews of that day judged much more accurately 
of our Lord's words than the Arians, Socinians, and Unita- 
rians of later times. Let us, however, examine the grounds 
of this accusation. We can suppose but two. They must 
have believed or held either that there was no such being as the 
Son of God in that sense, or if they admitted such a distinction 
of persons in the Divine nature, they intended to assert that 
the Lord Jesus had usurped the character without proving his 
right to it. 

With respect to the first of these suppositions, their own 
Scriptures were against them, although it is quite probable 
they did not understand them. Paul applies the words in the 
7th verse of Psalm ii. "Thou art my Son, this day have I 
begotten thee," to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, Acts 
xiii. 33, and the same expression he uses in Heb. i. 6, as 
evidence of his pre-eminence over angels, and in the same 
connection he cites Psalm xlv. 6th and 7th verses. "Thy 
throne, God is for ever and ever, the sceptre of thy kingdom 
is a right sceptre." Heb. i. 8. And, in Rom. i. 4, he speaks 
of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus as a declaration of his 
Sonship attested by Divine power. Our Lord also applies to 
himself, in an argument with the Pharisees, Psalm ex., proving 
48 



378 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

that the Christ is the Lord of David. They felt the force of 
the argument, and if unwilling to admit it, were unable to 
answer it. Besides, the prophet Isaiah ix. 6, applies to him, 
among other names, these: " Wonderful, Counsellor, the Mighty 
God, the Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace." Modern 
Jews have endeavoured to evade this passage by a different 
translation — Wonderful, Counsellor of the Mighty God, of the 
Everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. But we may ask 
with Paul, Who hath been the Counsellor of the Mighty God, 
but the eternal Son of God? Rom. xi. 34. See Prov. viii. 
22—30; xxx. 4. 

These passages, and many others that may be cited, prove 
that the foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity were firmly 
laid in the Old Testament, although the Jews, even the most 
learned of them, may not have clearly understood them ; for 
Paul says, Acts xiii. 27, they " knew not the voices of the 
prophets, which are read every Sabbath day." Yet their 
ignorance of their own Scriptures was no ground for denying 
the existence of such a being as the Son of God, nor did it 
dispense them from the obligation to receive him, and believe 
in him. Even the ministry of the Lord Jesus would have been 
without effect, had he not declared to them his true character, 
and their belief in him and reception of him as a mere man, 
would have been imperfect, and even vain. This accusation, 
then, was one which must of necessity fall upon the Messiah 
promised by God, because it was necessary that the Messiah 
should not only be the Son of God, but declare himself as 
such. Even Caiaphas and the council appeared to have 
believed this; as we may infer from his question, "Art thou 
the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?" Mark xiv. 61, for it was 
upon his answer to this question, claiming that character, that 
they condemned him. Mark xiv. 62, 64. Let us come now to 
the second supposition, viz. that he usurped this adorable char- 
acter, or assumed it without proof. 

We may admit that such a claim could never be established 
by mere assertion or argument, or by any merely human testi- 
mony or proof. Divine though he was, yet his Divinity was 
hidden under a merely human form, without any external 
evidences which human perception, could reach. His wisdom 
and eloquence were wonderful, but these might have been 
imparted by Divine influence to one of merely human nature. 
Hence it was our Lord constantly appealed to his works. "Ye 
sent unto John, and he bare witness unto the truth, but I 
receive not testimony from man. John v. 33. But I have 
greater witness than that of John; for the works that my 
Father hath given me to do — the same works that I do, bear 



PROOFS OF DIVINE SONSHIP. 379 

witness of me. John v. 36. If I do not the works of my 
Father, believe me not." John x. 37. See also John x. 24, 25. 
And after the close of his public ministry, he said : " If I had 
not done among them works which none other man did, they 
had not had sin." John xv. 24. These texts are sufficient on 
this point. 

It was the low estimate entertained, even by the most learned 
among the Jews, at that time, which led them to expect that 
the Messiah would openly claim his office, without respect to 
miraculous proof, which caused our Lord to say to them, "I 
have come, in my Father s name, and ye receive me not: If 
another shall come, in his own name, him ye will receive." 
John v. 43. And for the same reason, he predicted that many 
would come after him, in his name, saying, I am Christ, and 
should deceive many. Matt. xxiv. 5. So that the outward 
assumption of the office was one of the marks of a false Mes- 
siah — whereas the works which he performed, having been 
prophesied of and ascribed to the Christ, were the only incon- 
testable proof of the true Messiah. Let us consider now for a 
moment the works he performed: Were there ever greater works 
performed, or more in number, by any one in human form? 
He healed the sick, cleansed lepers, cast out devils, opened the 
eyes of the blind, raised the dead, gave hearing to the deaf, 
and perfect soundness to the lame, by his mere word and will ; 
and all these things he did to prove that he was sent by the 
Father; that he was the Son of the ever-blessed God; that he 
was one with him, and that he performed the same works as 
the Father; that he was the resurrection and the life. He 
declared that he had done, or that he was about to do, them, 
in order to attest these important truths. We may say, if such 
proofs were insufficient, it is impossible, in the nature of things, 
that the fact of Divine sonship can be proved to men. 

It is true that our Lord performed before his disciples some 
miracles which the public did not witness. He walked on the 
sea, he withered a fig-tree by his word, he exerted his power 
over the fish of the sea, causing one of them to bring tribute- 
money to the hook of Peter. He was transfigured before three 
of them, and called Moses and Elias into his presence. He 
might have performed all these miracles before the priests and 
rulers, had it been consistent with the Divine purpose to do so. 
He might have overawed and overpowered them by assuming 
his glory before them, and caused the people to tremble as they 
did when he appeared to them upon Mount Sinai. But such 
evidence would have left their hearts unchanged, and it was 
not the Divine purpose that he should throw off the covering 
of his humanity to prove to them his Deity. 



380 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

We conclude, then, that this second supposition is entirely 
groundless, and therefore this new accusation was an evidence 
both of their ignorance and their wickedness. We will now 
proceed to the next verse. 

John xix. 8. " When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he 
was the more afraid." 

This new accusation struck Pilate with great force, and he 
was unable at the instant to discover whether it was a mere 
calumny or had some foundation in fact. He must have 
observed something very mysterious in the silence of the Lord 
Jesus — in his superhuman patience and mildness, in his tran- 
quil dignity under the greatest outrages — and it was impossible 
for him not to reflect, "If a man, what a man!" His answers 
were equally incomprehensible. He must have remembered 
that he claimed to be a king, but of a kingdom different from 
the kingdoms of this earth. He recollected, also, what he said 
of the object of his birth and mission into this world. What 
could these words mean? Then, again, the distressing dream 
of his wife, and her urgent expostulation. Perhaps, also, he 
had previously heard of his preaching, his eminent virtue, his 
wonderful works. Such considerations would naturally bring 
him to a pause, and lead him seriously to inquire what this 
new character or office, which he was accused of usurping, could 
be, and what were the grounds of his claim to it. Such reflec- 
tions, also, would naturally excite regret, if not fear, for what 
he had done, and fear to proceed further. They would increase 
his perplexities and his desire to meddle no further in a matter 
where there was perhaps something supernatural and Divine. 
Perhaps, also, they inspired the hope that he might find by the 
investigation a way of escape from the danger of condemning a 
man not merely just, but of Divine origin. But the place where 
he then stood was unsuitable for such an investigation and calm 
reflection. He therefore, 

John xix. 9. " Went again into the judgment hall [or 
rather Prastorium], and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou?" 

The design of this question, it is probable, was not to ascer- 
tain his birthplace or family, as such a question would be 
understood in the ordinary intercourse of men ; but rather to 
draw from him what Pilate supposed to be his secret in regard 
to his supernatural origin, not known to the public. We must 
bear in mind that Pilate was a heathen, and that his religion 
taught him to believe in the existence of gods and goddesses, 
who had given birth to heroes, and although he may have 
regarded such beings as fabulous, as many enlightened Romans 
did, yet what he had heard of the works of Jesus may have 
inclined him to believe that such beings might exist. Or he 



pilate's inquiry as to Christ's origin. 381 

may have had more elevated thoughts of Jesus, who acknow- 
ledged but one God, and yet claimed to be the Son of God. 
But without attempting to penetrate the motive of his question, 
it was aptly put; for in order to know the true character of 
our Lord, it was necessary to know his origin. The Jews knew 
him not, because they stopped at that which they thought they 
knew. They believed that the Messiah was merely a son of 
David. They knew not that he was also the Lord of David. 
"We know this man whence he is, but when Christ cometh, no 
one knoweth whence he is." John vii. 27. There was more 
truth in this language than those who uttered it were aware of. 
Nazareth, and the human relations of our Lord, and his educa- 
tion in the house of Joseph, concealed his Divine origin. These 
were the veils which prevented them from knowing whence he 
was. But to the question of Pilate, 

John xix. 9. "Jesus gave him no answer." 

The silence of our Lord in these circumstances, when a word 
might have confirmed Pilate in the high idea he began to enter- 
tain, is more astonishing, when judged of by the rules of human 
prudence, than his silence under humiliation and sufferings. 
Pilate thought probably that he was doing honour to the Lord 
Jesus to propose a question to him, which implied a doubt 
whether he might not be of nobler birth than most other men. 
He thought probably that self-interest, or a desire to escape 
punishment would prompt an answer, which might lead not only 
to the discovery of his innocence, about which, however, Pilate 
did not doubt, but of his greatness — of his relations with some 
deity — of his motives in thus coming among men to mingle with 
them, and which had induced him to suffer so much without a 
murmur or a word — of his own power and resources, and of the 
chastisements which would befall those who should dare to con- 
demn him to death. But more than this, Pilate thought that 
he had the right to question the Lord Jesus about everything 
that regarded his condition and person, and to have an answer. 
In this, we need not say, Pilate erred greatly. It is not to 
such as Pilate, but to the humble, that the Lord reveals him- 
self. It is to faith, the first of his gifts, that he grants all 
others. Pilate could not comprehend this mystery. 

John xix. 10. "Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou 
not unto me?" 

These words discover clearly the secret disposition of Pilate, 
and confirm the suggestions already made. His words may be 
paraphrased thus: "Is it for my interest that I inquire whence 
you are ? Is it my condition or yours that is now in question ? 
Is it not an extraordinary precaution which I am now taking 
in your behalf, to find out, if I can, whether there is not some- 



382 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

thing extraordinary in your origin? Plainly, it is your interest 
to give me the information I desire upon a matter so important 
to yourself. Your silence is out of place, and will make you 
responsible for any mistake I may fall into. My duty is done 
when I have endeavoured to inform myself, but I go even 
beyond that. On the other hand, you, by your silence, make 
my good intentions and my pains useless." With such re- 
flections Pilate would naturally endeavour to justify himself in 
his own eyes, and condemn the silence of the Lord Jesus. But 
there is another view of the matter. Pilate did not need 
light, but courage. He had repeatedly declared the innocence 
of the Lord Jesus, and he needed no further proof. He 
had already succumbed to the enemies of the Lord, though 
he knew their malice and hatred. The marks of cruelty which 
the Lord bore upon his person, were the effects of Pilate's 
guilty complaisance to the priests and rulers. There is no 
reason to believe that Pilate would have been more just or 
more firm had the Lord Jesus told him who he was or whence 
he came. He had no means of rescue but the exertion of the 
Divine power concealed within him, but it was not the will 
of the Father that he should exert it; for "how then could 
the Scriptures be fulfilled that thus it must be?" Matt, 
xxvi. 54. 

If we consider the object of Pilate's inquiry we shall see 
many reasons why his question should not have been an- 
swered. Pilate was a Gentile and an idolater, ignorant of the 
Jewish Scriptures. It was impossible for him to form any 
proper conception of the nature and office of the Messiah. 
Had the Scriptures, which described his greatness and his 
humiliation, his deity and his humanity, been read to Pilate, 
they would have appeared to him nothing less than absolute 
contradictions. Besides, it did not belong to Pilate's office, 
as a civil magistrate, to decide upon such questions, and it 
certainly was not for him to prescribe to the Lord of heaven 
and earth the time and the manner in which he should declare 
himself. A moment's reflection might have convinced Pilate, 
that if Jesus were in truth the Son of God, as his question 
supposed he might be, it was not his office to inquire into 
the reasons why he had concealed his Divine nature from the 
apprehension of men. What Pilate added was more ob- 
jectionable, 

John xix. 10. " Knowest thou not that I have power to 
crucify thee and have power to release thee?" 

These are the words of an arbitrary and unjust man. He 
had the power to do wrong, but no right to do wrong. This 
language was designed to inspire fear, and thereby extort the 



PILATE UNWITTINGLY CONDEMNS HIMSELF. 383 

inforniation . lie required. But it took from him all excuse. 
By his own confession, he had as much power to deliver Jesus 
from the cruel malice of the Jews as to condemn him. Yet he 
had condemned him, while declaring him innocent; and also 
subjected him to a cruel scourging. If he had the power to 
do justice, why did he knowingly do injustice, and instead of 
being the master and ruler of the Jews, become their slave or 
their tool ? But it is much more easy to boast of one's power 
and authority than to exercise either properly. It is much 
easier to covet high places than to fulfil the duties of them. 
The pride of a man in power is enough to make him for- 
midable to his fellows, but it requires great virtue, as well as 
intelligence, to use power only for good ends. It is true, 
Pilate was profoundly ignorant of the august being whom 
he thus addressed. He had no conception that he himself 
would one day stand before the judgment seat of that man 
whom he thus addressed. But if it had been the humblest of 
Pilate's subjects who then stood before him, his language was 
unjustifiable in every point of view. Is justice nothing — is 
probity nothing — duty nothing? Is God's providence nothing, 
and the judgments of men — are they not subject to revision? 
Can one man be the god of another? Is it chance that puts 
one man in the power of another ? Is the mere caprice of the 
stronger the proper rule for the exercise of his power ? If not, 
then Pilate committed the most grievous errors possible. His 
words evince pride, as well as contempt of innocence and 
virtue. 

John xix. 11. "Jesus answered, Thou couldst have no 
power at all against me, except it were given thee from above." 

It is remarkable that these are the first words our Lord 
uttered, so far as we know, after his former private interview 
with Pilate, w T ithin the Prsetorium, when he avowed his kingly 
character, John xviii. 37 ; although, in the mean time, he had 
been sent to Herod, and sent back by him to Pilate — re- 
examined by Pilate, in the presence of the Jews, and scourged 
by the soldiers, in the court of his palace. During all .these 
scenes, and under all these indignities, he opened not his mouth, 
thus fulfilling Isaiah liii. 7. 

It is to be observed, also, that what he said on this occasion 
was not an answer to Pilate's question, "Whence art thou?" 
That question he had answered before, when he said he was a 
king. John xviii. 37. What he said on this occasion was 
intended to instruct Pilate upon the point of his own authority, 
and to inform him, as we shall see presently, of the relative 
guilt of those concerned in this transaction. But why should 
he speak upon this subject, while he remained silent upon all 



384 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

others ? We suppose the reason is, that Pilate's remark 
trenched upon the honour of the Divine government, inasmuch 
as he claimed a power independent of the providential govern- 
ment of God. 

Pilate derived his power from Tiberius Caesar. Tiberius 
had been chosen by Augustus Caesar to succeed him in the 
imperial office. Augustus Caesar overturned the government 
of his country, and by military force, had made himself the 
master of the Roman people. He also enlarged his dominions 
by conquest. Thus we trace the power and authority of 
Pilate back to a usurpation. How, then, could Pilate's power 
be said to have been given him from above, that is, from 
heaven ? 

The answer is, that it came to him in the order of God's 
providence, and so was a derived and dependent power, and not 
one originating in human force or will. In proof of this, we 
may refer to Rom. xiii. 1, 2, where Paul instructs us in the 
true nature and tenure of all human governments : " Let every 
soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power 
but of God — the powers that be are ordained (or ordered) of 
God. Whoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the 
ordinance of God." When Paul wrote this precept, Nero, one 
of the most cruel and unjust of men, swayed the empire. It 
is evident, therefore, that the precept was intended for all 
rulers and all ages. True, God does not directly choose tem- 
poral princes as he chose David, but his providence regulates 
and controls the events by which their powers and authority 
are established. 

Observe now, that in this qualified sense our Lord admits the 
power of Pilate even over himself as a man; inasmuch as his 
words imply that Pilate is established in lawful authority by 
God's providence, and that it was not the Divine purpose at 
that time to prevent any abuse of the power which had thus 
providentially been placed in Pilate's hands; but rather to 
permit an abuse of it, for the execution of the purpose of 
redemption. If such was our Lord's meaning, we have no 
reason to suppose that Pilate comprehended it, and we must 
therefore receive these words as an instruction for the Church 
in all ages. The remaining words of this verse, and the last 
which our Lord ever addressed to Pilate, are these: 

John xix. 11. "Therefore he that delivered me unto thee 
hath the greater sin." 

These words are a deduction or conclusion from the previous 
proposition. The fact that Pilate's power was derived from 
above, (that is, as we have explained, it came to him in the 
way of God's providence,) was the reason why Pilate's sin was 



INQUIRY AS TO THE AGENCY OP SATAN. 385 

less than the sin of him who brought the Lord to Pilate's bar. 
To unfold this reasoning, we must consider carefully both the 
premises and the conclusion. And first, as to Pilate's sin: 
This did not consist in the mere fact that he took cognizance 
of the accusation made against Jesus. It was his business — his 
official duty to do so, and power had been given him from 
above for that purpose. His sin consisted in the abuse or 
sinful exercise of his legitimate powers — in his cowardice, his 
unjust regard to infuriated men, in his vain expedients to get 
rid of his duties, in the cruelties he had perpetrated under 
pretext of clemency, in his unjust judgment, in opposition to 
the known and declared innocence of the Lord Jesus. We 
may trace all these sins to one source — the fear of man. Had 
Pilate's courage been equal to his judgment and conscience, he 
would have soon put an end to the proceeding, and dispersed 
the boisterous crowd, if necessary, by the military force at his 
command, or if that force was unequal to the emergency, he 
would rather have sacrificed his life than his conscience. But 
sins springing from fear are less heinous in the sight of God 
than those which flow from envy and hatred. It is plain that 
Pilate wished to deliver the Lord Jesus, and equally plain that 
the chief priests and rulers wished to destroy him. They were 
active in bringing the object of their hate to the bar of Pilate, 
and malicious, as well as active, in making false accusations. 
It was Pilate's duty to hear them, but not to yield when he 
discovered their malice and falsehood. They pursued their 
victim hotly and with the malice of murderers : Pilate, through 
weakness and fear, yielded to their importunity and threats. 
This is one view of the matter. There is, however, a point of 
difficulty not yet noticed. Are the priests chiefly intended by 
the expression, "He that delivered me to thee," &c. We 
observe the pronoun is in the singular number, as though some 
one person was intended. " Therefore he that delivered me," 
&c. Let us attend first to the historical facts. Judas betrayed 
the Lord Jesus to the band, the captain, and the officers of the 
Jews. John xviii. 1 — 3. They led him to Annas, verse 13; 
Annas sent him to Caiaphas, verse 24; Caiaphas examined 
him in the presence of the officers, verses 19 — 22. As soon 
as it was day, he was taken to the council, and the elders, 
chief priests, and rulers came together, Luke xxii. 66; and 
the whole multitude took him to Pilate. Luke xxiii. 1, 10, 13, 
14; John xviii. 28. To whom, then, does the word he refer? 
Some commentators say that the singular he is put for the 
plural, and includes Judas, the high priest, and the whole 
Sanhedrim. Diodati says it refers to the chief priest and the 
Jews. Adam Clarke thinks Judas and the Jews are meant; 
49 



386 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Henry says either the Jews or Caiaphas in particular was 
meant; Doddridge says the Jewish high priest and the council. 
No doubt all these were guilty actors, and even more guilty 
than Pilate, for the reasons suggested. But is it not as true 
of them as of Pilate, that they could have no power over the 
Lord at all, unless it had been given them or permitted to 
them in the course of God's providence? Our Lord's remark 
to Peter at the time of his arrest is pertinent in this place:* 
" Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he 
shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?" 
Matt. xxvi. 53. And this also : " I lay down my life that I 
might take it again. No one taketh it from me, but I lay it 
down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have 
power to take it again." John x. 17, 18. These passages 
prove that none of these enemies of our Lord had any power 
over him at all but such as he himself permitted them to exer- 
cise. Does not, then, the reason assigned for the difference 
between Pilate and these others fail, if the view taken be the 
correct one ? Let us attempt another explanation. 

Turn to Gen. iii. 15, the first prediction and promise to fallen 
man — a prediction which in fact preceded the utterance of the 
curse. "And the Lord God said to the serpent, Because thou 
hast done this .... I will put enmity between thee and the 
woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise (or 
rather, crush thee, as to) thy head, and thou shalt bruise his 
heel." But in the meantime Satan (who acted by the serpent) 
acquired a dominion in this world of such a nature, that he is 
called in Scripture the god of this world, 6 6eo<z too alwvot; 

* Peter's denial of his Master, Matt. xxvi. 69 — 75; Mark xiv. 66 — 72; 
Luke xxii. 54 — 62; John xviii. 25 — 27, is an ever memorable example of his 
weakness; and forms a strange contrast with his rash assault upon an under- 
ling of the high priest shortly before. Our Lord's reproof of Peter on both 
these occasions is very remarkable. That for his denial is a touching example 
of his tenderness, Luke xxii. 61; John xxi. 17; while that for his assault 
contains a pointed allusion to his want of consideration. This disciple, with 
only two others, had been privileged to witness the scene of the Transfigu- 
ration, and the glorious apparition of Moses and Elias in answer to his prayer. 
Luke ix. 29 — 31. The remembrance of this scene should have stayed his rash 
hand. Yet he acted as if it were needful that he should rescue or avenge his 
Master. None could understand better than Peter the point and force of the 
reproof. "Thinkest thou," Peter, thou who wast privileged to witness my 
glory and power, when Moses and Elias appeared in answer to my prayer — 
"thinkest thou" — whatever others not thus privileged may think — "that I 
cannot now," as easily as I did then, "pray to my Father and he will imme- 
diately give me more than twelve legions of angels" for my rescue. "But 
how, then, shall the Scriptures concerning my decease (exodus) at Jerusalem, 
of which Moses and Elias spake, 'be fulfilled?'" &c. The emphatic thou 
conveys an allusion to the peculiar privilege of Peter; the emphatic now to the 
time of the transfiguration ; and the whole expression to the inconsiderateness 
of this disciple. 



AGENCY OF SATAN. 387 

tootou, 2 Cor. iv. 4 — the prince of the power of the air, Eph. 
ii. 2 — the prince of this world, John xiv. 30; xvi. 11 — the 
power of darkness. Luke xxii. 53. See also Acts xxvi. 18; 
1 John iii. 8; Rev. xii. 7 — 10; xx. 3. The power or dominion 
of Satan thus acquired, is altogether different from the powers 
of human governments. These are changed and overturned in 
the order of Providence, but the power which Satan acquired 
at the fall of man could be broken, consistently with the Divine 
justice, only by the incarnation and atonement of the Son of 
God. Hence John says, 1 John iii. 8: "For this purpose the 
Son of God was manifested [that is, in the flesh,] that he might 
destroy the works of the devil;" and Paul teaches, Heb. ii. 14, 
that the Son of God became a partaker of flesh and blood, that 
through (or by the means of his) death he might destroy him 
that hath the power of death, that is, the devil, who acted by 
the serpent spoken of in Gen. iii. 15. See Rev. xx. 2. These 
considerations show that Satan gained a power which in some 
sense was independent, inasmuch as it could not be defeated or 
destroyed, consistently with the Divine wisdom and purposed 
mercy towards man, except by a sacrifice of infinite price. 

The time had now come when this sacrifice was to be made. 
Let us suppose the curse upon the serpent, Gen. iii. 15, had a 
reference to Satan — its terms imply a contest, or an assault, by 
him upon the predicted Seed. He had no power to crush the 
head of the woman's seed, that is, perpetually to retain the 
dominion he had usurped by the fall of Adam, but he had the 
power, in the figurative language of the prediction, to assault 
and wound the heel of the Seed ; although the act was full of 
peril to himself, for his head or dominion, while engaged in that 
act, would be crushed and for ever destroyed. Although this 
prediction thus referred to Satan, yet the mystery which it 
concealed was hidden from him, 1 Cor. ii. 7, 8, and when the 
time for its fulfilment came, the deceiver was caught in his own 
craftiness. Job v. 13; 1 Cor. iii. 19. It is evident, also, from 
the temptation, that Satan did not comprehend the mystery 
concealed in our Lord's person, Matt. iv. 3, 6 ; Luke iv. 3, 9 ; 
yet until our Lord's public ministry was actually ended, he felt 
and acknowledged his power, and afterwards until he was 
released from it by these mysterious words addressed to Judas, 
after he had actually entered into him, John xiii. 27: "That 
thou doest do quickly." 

Thus released from the power he had hitherto felt, he entered 
quickly upon his work. In the person of Judas, he went to the 
hall of Caiaphas, prompted the words of Judas, instigated the 
chief priests, the Pharisees, the officers, and the band of armed 
men ; proceeded with them to the garden ; guided their operations 



388 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

there, and at the house of Annas, of Caiaphas, entered with 
them into their midnight counsel; prompted all the acts of 
spite, indignity, and outrage which occurred there, and at the 
palace of Pilate. He was the chief actor, while Judas, the 
chief priests, and the Jews, were his guilty instruments. All 
this is implied in the transaction which was then to be per- 
formed. His power was then to be crushed, but in the way of 
a seeming victory. If then the death of the Lord on the cross, 
by means of Judas, the Jews, and Pilate, was foretold by the 
words, Gen. iii. 15, "thou shalt bruise his heel," they imply at 
the least, that Satan should be the chief actor in that conflict ; 
and the same thing we conceive is implied in the words addressed 
by our Lord to those who came to apprehend him, Luke xxii. 53, 
"This is your hour, and" (the hour of) u the power of darkness" 
is the hour of Satan's power. Our Lord, therefore, in the 
words under consideration, regards this power as single or one, 
which he personifies in Satan. As if he had said, "Thou, 
Pilate, couldest have no poweft* over me at all, except it were 
given thee in the order of God's providence, for the purpose of 
civil government. It is no sin in you to exercise this power for 
the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do 
well, 1 Pet. ii. 13, 14, nor even to take cognizance of all ques- 
tions which are brought before you. But he that delivered me 
to thee does not act by a delegated power, and under God, but 
by a usurped power in opposition to God, which it is God's pur- 
pose to destroy in the only way possible, consistently with the 
honour of his government, and purposed mercy to sinners of 
mankind. Your sin, and even the sin of the chief priests and 
Pharisees, is pardonable, Luke xxiii. 34, through the blood 
which you are now about to shed. But the sin of the chief 
actor is unpardonable, 2 Pet. ii. 4 ; although he is as ignorant 
as you are of the mystery of redemption, and of the far-reach- 
ing consequences of his conduct in this matter." 

We are justified, we submit, in taking this view of the pas- 
sage. Our Lord did not, it is true, name Satan. It was not 
necessary to do so to Pilate. He was incapable of understand- 
ing more of his meaning than these words conveyed. But if we 
exclude the agency of Satan from this transaction, where, when, 
or how, we may ask, did the predicted conflict, Gen. iii. 15, take 
place? Let the reader pause to answer. Besides, the death 
of the Lord Jesus was accomplished at that time, and the power 
of death is expressly ascribed by Paul to Satan. Heb. ii. 14. 
Some have supposed, as Baxter, that ordinary sicknesses, as 
well as death, are inflicted by Satan, partly upon the ground 
of this passage; but we may, perhaps, give the apostle's words 
a more restricted meaning, by connecting with them an allusion 



PILATE IS MOVED TO RELEASE JESUS. 389 

to G-en. iii. 15, and the method of atonement thereby appointed. 
For although the work of redemption was voluntarily assumed 
by the Son of God, Philip, ii. 7, yet having assumed it, there 
was a Divine necessity that he should submit himself to the 
power of Satan, for the undergoing of these sufferings and that 
death which were the appointed means of the redemption of the 
world, and the destruction of Satan's power over it. 

This explanation of the passage may seem diffuse, but greater 
brevity would have left it obscure. Let us now proceed. 

John xix. 12. "And from thenceforth Pilate sought to 
release Jesus." 

We learn by these words the impression our Lord's answer 
made upon the mind of Pilate. Prisoner though he was, the 
Lord replied with the utmost tranquillity and mildness to the 
implied threat; yet he charged the guilty governor with sin, 
and in so doing, he acted really as his judge. Pilate's con- 
science felt the truth of the charge, and he sought, no doubt, 
anxiously to relieve himself, by releasing his prisoner. Our 
Lord's demeanour could not be otherwise than divinely impres- 
sive. It was impossible that Pilate should not perceive some- 
thing mysterious and even supernatural in the patience and 
silence of the Lord Jesus — something beyond his power to 
comprehend, or even conjecture. It ought to have determined 
him unalterably to take no further step towards his con- 
demnation. 

Had Pilate acted with his usual resolution, there can be 
little doubt that he would have released the Lord, and taken 
his person under his protection. But he was a bad man, and, 
like Judas, was given over to the invisible power of Satan. He 
said the truth, when he affirmed he had power to release. He 
was under no irresistible constraint. He had a body of armed 
men at his command. The fortresses of the city and of all 
Judea were under his control. And it would have been easy 
for him to justify his act to the Roman Emperor, by a simple 
narration of the facts. Yet he allowed himself to be overcome 
by a threat from those whom, on other occasions, he had treated 
with contempt. 

John xix. 12. "But the Jews cried out, If thou let this 
man go, thou art not Caesar's friend. Whosoever maketh him- 
self a king, speaketh against Caesar." 

The reader perceives here that the Jews abandoned their last 
accusation, and returned to the first, which Pilate had so often 
discarded, and even the Jews had abandoned. These incon- 
sistencies prove their malice. But who would have thought a 
Roman governor needed the exhortations of Jewish priests to be 
faithful to the Emperor ! Their zeal was certainly misplaced. 



390 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

It was neither sincere nor pure. It is an example of religious 
bigotry, always malicious, invoking the aid of the secular power 
in furtherance of falsehood, when all other means failed. 
Besides, their charge was of a nature to fall directly upon the 
true Messiah, whoever he might be — even on the Messiah they 
expected. It was made also in opposition to the known fact, 
that the Lord Jesus expressly disclaimed interference with the 
temporal power, and had virtually enjoined on them the duty 
of paying tribute to Caesar. 

John xix. 13. "When Pilate therefore heard that saying, 
he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in 
the place that is called [in Greek] the pavement, but in the 
Hebrew gabbatha, and it was the preparation of the Passover, 
and about the sixth hour, and he saith unto the Jews, Behold 
your king." 

It appears by the connection, that Pilate had left Jesus in 
the Prsetorium at the close of the last private interview, and 
went out to the pavement to expostulate with the Jews upon 
their cruel and unjust demand. What Pilate said to them John 
does not record, but only the answer of the Jews to Pilate's 
expostulation: "If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's 
friend," &c. Upon hearing these words, Pilate retired into 
the Prgetorium, where he had left the Lord, and brought him 
forth, and sat on his judgment seat. It is not improbable that 
the Lord stood near him, as conspicuously in view as Pilate. 
We have already remarked upon the august function Pilate 
performed, when he brought him forth from the court of his 
palace, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe; 
although Pilate was not on either occasion aware of the nature 
of the act he was performing. But hitherto this presentation 
of the Messiah to his people by Pilate, was in a manner indis- 
tinct. It was the purpose of Divine Providence that it should 
be now repeated as a distinct act, unconnected with anything 
else. This last scene in the transaction seems designed for that 
purpose. Pilate does not appear to have intended derision or 
mockery of the Jews on this occasion; but if such had been his 
motive, the act was providentially ordered for a very different 
end. Let us lay Pilate out of view, then, for a moment, and 
consider his act and his words, with the response of the Jews. 
Try to imagine this scene. There stood the true Messiah in 
full view of a vast multitude, gathered from all parts of the 
country, including their priests and their rulers. Pilate says 
in their hearing, suiting, perhaps, his action to his words, "Be- 
hold your king." They instantly cry out with violence and 
passion, "Away with him, crucify him!" Thus, when formally 
presented, they again reject him, and demand his death. To 



THE JEWS' FORMAL REJECTION OE THE MESSIAH. 391 

remove all ambiguity, Pilate was prompted to put to them this 
one question — "Shall I crucify your king?" The chief priests 
answered in the name and on behalf of the nation, " We have 
no king but Caesar." What Pilate said when he thus, for the 
last time, presented Jesus to them, was true. He was their king. 
In this act Pilate was the instrument of Divine Providence, and 
his words, heathen as he was, were dictated to him. Pilate 
spoke them not of himself. They were the words of God, as 
the words of Caiaphas were, when he prophesied that Jesus 
should die for that nation. John xi. 49 — 52. The rejection of 
him by the people and their rulers was formal and explicit. 
The place, the day, the hour, as well as the declaration of 
Pilate, and the answer of the Jews, rendered it the most solemn, 
most awful transaction this world has ever witnessed, except 
the scene of the cross which soon followed. 

It would be difficult to determine the idea which Pilate had 
of Jesus, when he inquired, "Shall I crucify your king?" We 
have no reason to suppose he was instructed in the Jewish 
Scriptures, although there is reason to suppose he began to 
entertain a higher idea of the character of Jesus than ever 
before. But the answer of the chief priests, considered without 
reference to the thoughts of Pilate, was a plain rejection of the 
Messiah promised them in the Scriptures, and a formal, solemn 
renunciation of the national expectation and hope. "We have 
no king but Cgesar." They do not say to Pilate, "He is not 
our king whom you propose to us as such ; he is an impostor — 
a deceiver. The Messiah and king whom we expect will bear 
a different character, and furnish us with other proofs of his 
title." On the contrary, they renounce all the promises made 
to Abraham and David; they cut themselves off from the house 
of David as effectually as the ten tribes did, when they said, 
"What portion have we in David? neither have we inheritance 
in the Son of Jesse. To your tents, Israel." 1 Kings xii. 16. 
Judging them by these words, they regarded as a vain thing 
the great and glorious hope of Israel, and renounced all that 
was essential in their religion, when they proclaimed that a 
foreign, heathen prince — an enemy of their religion, was their 
only king. They gave Pilate to understand that they neither 
desired nor hoped for any other. But was it in Caesar, we 
may ask, they expected the fulfilment of those Divine promises 

made to David? "I will set up thy seed after thee I 

will establish his kingdom I will establish the throne 

of his kingdom for ever." 2 Sam. vii. 12 — 16. "In his days 
shall the righteous flourish, and abundance of. peace so long as 
the moon endureth." Ps. lxxii. 7. Was it to Caesar that God 
had promised with an oath, " The Lord hath sworn and will 



392 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

not repent; thou art a priest for ever after the order of Mel- 
chizedec?" Ps. ex. 4. Was it of Caesar that God by the 
mouth of David had said, "His name shall endure for ever; 
his name shall be continued as long as the sun, and men shall 
be blessed in him. All nations shall call him blessed?" Ps. 
lxxii. 17. How, then, could they say, "We have no king"— 
we desire no king — we hope for no king "but Caesar?" 

God took the nation at their word, in answer to Pilate. He 
abandoned the nation to Caesar, according to their choice. Never 
since have they had a king of the house of David, or of their 
nation. They have no priesthood, nor sacrifice, nor common- 
wealth, nor liberty. From that time to this, they have been 
subject to foreign powers, and the land of the Covenant has 
been trodden down by the Gentiles ; thus fulfilling the words of 
their own prophet, Hosea iii. 4 : " The children of Israel shall 
abide many days without a king, and without a prince, and 
without a sacrifice, and without an image, and without an ephod, 
and without teraphim." See Luke xxi. 24; Matt, xxiii. 37, 38. 

These dreadful judgments and long-continued desolations they 
invoked upon themselves. Yet for all this, their rejected Mes- 
siah will yet have mercy upon them for their fathers' sake. 
Rom. xi. 28. For the same prophet adds, Hos. iii. 5: "After- 
ward shall the children of Israel return and seek the Lord their 
God and David their king, and shall fear the Lord and his good- 
ness in the latter days." See Matt, xxiii. 39. 

We may dwell here a moment on some of our Lord's allu- 
sions, during his public ministry,, to this final and formal rejec- 
tion of himself by the nation. " Oh that thou hadst known, 
even thou, at least in this thy day, the things that belong to 
thy peace ; but now they are hid from thine eyes ; for the days 
shall come upon thee, that thine enemies shall cast a trench 
about thee, and compass thee round, and keep thee in on every 
side, and lay thee even with the ground, and thy children within 
thee, and they shall not leave in thee one stone upon another ; 
because thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." Luke 
xix. 41—44. See Matt. xxii. 7 ; xxi. 41 — 43 ; Luke xix. 14, 27. 

These predictions of our Lord were executed by the Romans 
and that Caesar, or that Gentile power, which they preferred to 
Jesus. They were oppressed by Caligula, the successor of 
Tiberius. Nero punished them for that revolt into which they 
had been goaded, by the entire desolation of Galilee. They 
suffered almost incredible evils in the siege of Jerusalem, which 
was taken the first year of Vespasian. One instance may be 
mentioned. A large number of Jews, oppressed by famine, 
and not being able to endure the tyranny of a party of their 
own people, endeavoured to escape from Jerusalem, and make 



CHRIST DELIVERED TO BE CRUCIFIED. 393 

their way through the besieging army by artifice or by force. 
But they all fell into the hands of the Roman soldiers, who, 
after cruel flagellations and all sorts of tortures and indignities, 
crucified them upon the ramparts opposite to the wall. They 
crucified five hundred and even more daily, until there was no 
more space to plant crosses, and no more crosses upon which to 
hang victims. Josephus, lib. i. cap. 12. Thus God delivered 
this people into the hands of their enemies, who executed the 
Divine judgments, and from that time the Theocracy has alto- 
gether been withdrawn from Israel. 

Our Lord foretold these dreadful judgments in the parable 
of the marriage, recorded in Matt. xxii. 7 ; and from that day 
to this, the Jews have been living witnesses of the Divine mis- 
sion of the Lord Jesus. 

John xix. 16. " Then delivered he him therefore unto them 
to be crucified, and they took Jesus, and led him away;" or, as 
Luke expresses it, xxiii. 24, " he gave sentence that it should 
be as they required." 

Thus ended the proceeding before Pilate, and thus was ful- 
filled the prophecy of Isaiah liii. 8: "He was taken from 
prison and from judgment, and who shall declare his genera- 
tion ? for he was cut off out of the land of the living ; for the 
transgression of my people was he smitten;" or, as a learned 
Jewish translator renders the clause — " Through oppression 
and through judicial punishment, was he taken away ; but his 
generation — who could tell?" 

We are not to understand by these words that the Jews took 
our blessed Lord to Calvary, and with their own hands nailed 
him to the cross. The centurion and the soldiers executed the 
sentence of Pilate, as we learn from the succeeding narrative. 
Besides, we know from other sources, that among the Romans^ 
soldiers took the lives of those whom the magistrates had con- 
demned to death. Thus both Jews and Gentiles concurred in 
the accomplishment of the mystery of redemption. The Jews 
demanded the death of their King and Saviour at the tribunal 
of Pilate, and he gave sentence that it should be as they 
required. Gentiles then nailed him to the cross. Both were 
inexcusable while accomplishing that act, -through which alone 
can either Jew or Gentile hope for salvation. 

Pilate retained his office some two or three years after these 
events. According to Josephus, the Jewish historian, he wag 
guilty of great oppression and of other misconduct, for which he 
was deposed from his office in the last year of the reign of Tibe- 
rius Caesar, a.d. 36 — 7. Eusebius informs us that he was exiled 
to Vienna, a town in Gaul, situated on the Rhone. Herod Anti- 
pas suffered a similar end. According to Josephus, he was 
50 



394 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

banished to Lyons, which was a few miles north of Vienna. 
See Josephus Antiq., xviii. 5; Tacitus, Annals, xv. 44. 

Matt, xxvii. 3 — 5. " Then Judas which had betrayed him, 
when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, (fiera- 
fietydet<z) and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the 
chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have 
betrayed innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us ? 
See thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the 
temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself." 

This incident is brought in by some harmonists at this junc- 
ture of the proceeding, though it may be questioned whether 
we should not assign to it an earlier place. However that may 
be, it shows us that while Judas was touched with remorse, and 
would gladly have undone his deed, the priests and elders were 
inexorably resolved to accomplish their purpose. Deep must 
have been the anguish of the traitor to vent itself in such acts ! 
Yet the Evangelist employs a word to denote it which does not 
allow us to suppose that his repentance was genuine. Some 
authors understand the word, (any-r^aro) translated "hanged 
himself," as signifying merely that "he was suffocated or 
strangled," and the learned Lightfoot takes it in that sense. 
He supposes that Satan, having taken corporeal possession of 
Judas, was permitted to destroy his life by a direct act of power 
in an extraordinary way, and that he did so at the moment of 
quitting possession of his person. Certain it is, there was 
something in the manner of his death so remarkable as to be 
generally spoken of as such by the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 
Acts i. 18, 19, which serves to distinguish it from a common 
case of suicide. So Lightfoot argues, see his Harmony, and 
his Works, vol. ii. pp. 384 and 690. 

* Matt, xxvii. 6, 7. "And the chief priests took the silver 
pieces, and said, It is not lawful for us to put them into the 
treasury, because it is the price of blood. And they took 
counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury 
strangers in." 

If Judas approached the priests during the proceeding before 
Pilate, it is not probable his interview with them was more 
than momentary. Nor is it probable they consulted together, 
as we are informed they did in these verses, before the awful 
tragedy was finished. Judas, finding they were remorseless, 
cast the money down in the temple as a detestable thing, and 
immediately departed. The resolution of the priests con- 
cerning this money shows the irregular workings of conscience 
in depraved men. The law they would not violate. Yet they 
would take the money, and even dispose of it. But because 
they had once paid it away to a traitor as the price of blood, it 



I 



THE potter's field. 395 

could not be. put back into the Corban, or sacred treasury, 
from whence, without scruple, they had taken it to buy that 
blood. See Deut. xxiii. 18. Still something should be done 
with it for a charitable end. They resolve, therefore, to buy 
the potter's field for the burial of strangers — probably Gentiles, 
though some suppose it was intended for the burial of persons 
who came to Jerusalem for religious purposes and died there. 
The potter's field is here spoken of as a place well known. 
The use which had been made of it would naturally give it 
notoriety with the people generally. Probably it had been 
exhausted of its clay, and abandoned as no longer of any value, 
otherwise it is not probable it could have been purchased for so 
small a price. Could they have looked only a few years into 
futurity, they would have seen how useless this provision would 
be, either for themselves or strangers. 

Matt, xxvii. 8. "Wherefore that field was called [has been 
called] the field of blood until this day." 

From Acts i. 19, we learn that the field was called in the 
dialect of Jerusalem Acel-clama, or Hakal (field,) dama (blood.) 
It was situated near the southern quarter of Mount • Sion, 
according to Jerome, and was so called, not only because it was 
the price of blood, but was the place where Judas himself 
perished. See Acts i. 18, 19, and Lightfoot on that passage. 
It is remarkable that the name of the field should be changed 
for the reason here mentioned. It is not easy to bring the 
common people to change the name of a public and well known 
place. Why not call it still "The potter's field?" or if the 
name must be changed, why not denominate it from the new 
use to which it was to be put — " The field to bury strangers 
in," or, as we should say, "The strangers' burial-ground?" 
The change certainly could not have been made by the 
disciples of the Lord, nor was it made to honour him. Ac- 
cording to Luke, Acts i. 19, the name served rather to per- 
petuate the crime of Judas, and according to Matthew, the 
crime of the priests also. 

Matt, xxvii. 9, 10. "Then was fulfilled that which was 
spoken by Jeremy the prophet, saying, And they took the 
thirty pieces of silver, the price of him that was valued, whom 
they of the children of Israel did value, and gave them for the 
potter's field, as the Lord appointed me." 

The passage here cited is found in Zechariah xi. 13, and not 
in Jeremiah. Some have accounted for the discrepancy by 
saying that the later prophets were accustomed to repeat the 
predictions and the language of their predecessors. Compare 
Jer. xxxi. 29, 30, with Ezek. xviii. 2, 3, 4. Zechariah 
especially was accustomed to use the words of Jeremiah — so 



396 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

much so, that the Jews had the saying, that the spirit of 
Jeremiah was in Zechariah. On this ground, some have 
supposed that the prophecy here quoted was first uttered by 
Jeremiah, and afterwards repeated by Zechariah. See Crrotius. 
Others account for the discrepancy in this way : They say that 
the name of Jeremiah stood first in the book of the prophets, 
and that it was the intention of the Evangelist to quote from 
the volume under his name, not to cite the particular author of 
this prophecy. In the same manner it is supposed our Lord 
(Luke xxiv. 44) intended to include under the title of a the 
Psalms" the whole of the Jewish Hagiography, because the 
Psalms stood first in that division of the Jewish Scriptures. 
See Less. pp. 352, 353. This is Lightfoot's explanation (see 
his Harmony.) Passing this matter, which is of minor mo- 
ment, as the authenticity and inspiration of the passage cannot 
reasonably be doubted, we add a word or two on the quotation 
itself. 

If we turn to the prophet Zechariah, xi. 13, we find that 
God, under the parable, or rather in the character, of a shep- 
herd, demands of the Jews his price or reward for the blessings 
he had conferred on them, in guiding and instructing them. 
They give him the niggardly sum of thirty pieces of silver — 
the price of a slave who had been pushed or gored by an ox. 
Exod. xxi. 32. Disdaining the gift, God commands the 
prophet to cast the money to the potter. The prophet obeyed 
by casting it into the temple for the potter. Thus, what was 
typically done by the prophet was actually carried out in the 
person of the Great Shepherd. 1 Pet. v. 4. The priests 
actually paid to Judas for the person of the Lord Jesus the 
thirty pieces of silver, which he brought back to them, and 
when they would not receive the pieces, he cast them down in 
the temple as the prophet did. These same pieces the priests 
paid away again to the potter for his field. 

This passage, Matt, xxvii. 3 — 10, is evidently a digression 
from the general course of the narrative. If we read verses 
1 and 2 in immediate connection with the 11th and the follow- 
ing verses, we perceive no break in the sense. By introducing 
this passage in the history of Judas at this place, the Evange- 
list gives us reason to suppose that it followed immediately 
upon our Lord's condemnation by the Sanhedrim, and before 
the proceeding before the Roman governor was commenced, 
and such we suppose the correct view, although Cradock, New- 
come, and Dr. Robinson introduce it immediately after the 
condemnation of Jesus by Pilate. John xix. 16. We now 
return to the narrative. 

John xix. 16. "And they took Jesus, and led him away." 



CHRIST BEARING THE CROSS. 397 

The act of Pilate last mentioned, was the presentation of 
Jesus to the Jews as their king, and their rejection of him in 
that character. It took place, it will be remembered, at the 
judgment seat in front of the Prsetorium. From that place 
they — the soldiers — led him away to the place of crucifixion. 

Matt, xxvii. 31; Mark xv. 30. "And after they had 
mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own 
clothes on him, and led him out to crucify him." 

The mockery here spoken of was that barbarous sport which 
the soldiers made of the Lord of glory, delivered into their 
hands by Pilate to be put to death. At the conclusion of it 
they took off the royal robe, but not the crown of thorns, at 
least it is not said they did, and put upon him his own clothes. 
Thus we see the final scene of his suffering was delayed a little, 
in order to allow opportunity to heap on him new insults and 
indignities. Such conduct in the case of the vilest and most 
odious malefactor would not be tolerated among a people 
enlightened by the doctrine, and imbued, in ever so slight a 
degree, with the spirit of this Jesus who so meekly bore it. 

It was the custom of the Jews to conduct outside of the camp 
or of the city those who were condemned to death, as we learn 
from Numb. xv. 35 ; 1 Kings xxi. 13. The Romans had the 
same custom, Hirtius de Bello Africano, Seneca, Vegetius, 
Plautus, Mil. Gilo, act ii. sc. 4; Sueton. in Clauclio, cap. xxi.; 
and it was observed in the case of the Saviour. But there was 
much more meaning in their leading the Saviour out of the city 
than a mere conformity to Roman or Jewish customs. Our 
Lord had predicted this in his prophetical allegory of the house- 
holder, Matt. xxi. 39; and the apostle Paul finds in it the 
fulfilment of the typical import of Levit. xiv. 11, 12; vi. 30; 
compared with xvi. 27. "For the bodies of those beasts whose 
blood is brought into the sanctuary by the high priest, are 
burned without the camp. Wherefore, Jesus, that he might 
sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the 
gate." Heb. xiii. 11, 12. 

The body of our Lord, considered as an offering for sin, 
therefore must needs be taken without the city, while his blood 
was offered, not within the temple by the Jewish high priest, 
but was presented by himself, the true High Priest, within the 
holy place of the upper sanctuary, having obtained thereby for 
his people eternal redemption. Heb. ix. 11, 12; x. 12. 

John xix. 17. "And he, bearing his cross, went forth into 
a place called 'The place of a skull,' which is called in the 
Hebrew, Golgotha." 

We are told that it was the usage of the Romans to compel 
those who were to be crucified to bear their own crosses. And 



398 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

there are some evidences of such a usage. A heathen author 
says : " Qui in cruce figendus, prius ipsam portet," Artemidorus, 
1. 2, cap. 61, ' Ovsepoxper. ; and Plutarch says nearly the same 
thing : " Corpore quidem quisque maleficorum suam effert 
crucem." Lib. de Tarda Dei Vindictd. See Vossius' Har- 
mony. There may be some reasonable doubt, however, whether 
this custom was universal. The Evangelists do not inform us 
that the two malefactors who were crucified with Jesus bore 
their crosses, and the Evangelist John, by noticing this fact, 
which the other Evangelists omit, seems to denote it as pecu- 
liar — and if peculiar, how significant ! But whether so or not, 
the fact is recorded to show the sufferings with which it pleased 
the Father to afflict his beloved Son. And what a spectacle ! 
The Son of God, in his human nature, bending under the 
weight of a cross ! — -a spectacle at which impiety scoffs, but in 
which faith perceives a great mystery. It reminds us of the 
offering of Isaac by Abraham at the command of God. Gen. 
xxii. 3 — 6, probably on the same place. The bearing of the 
cross may perhaps also have been intended as an act emble- 
matical of the bearing of our sins. 1 Pet. ii. 24 ; Isa. liii. 6. 

Luke xxiii. 26; Mark xv. 21; Matt, xxvii. 32. "And 
as they led him away, they laid hold upon one Simon, a Cyre- 
nian, who passed by, coming out of the country, the father of 
Alexander and Rufus ; him they compelled to bear his cross : 
and on him they laid the cross, that he might bear it after 
Jesus." 

This circumstance is not mentioned by John ; and it may be 
observed that John's account does not contain a full representa- 
tion of the crucifixion. Luke supplies several circumstances 
which add vividness to the dreadful scene, and Matthew records 
some which the other Evangelists do not mention. This we 
shall observe as we proceed. We have no reason to regard the 
act here mentioned as dictated by humanity, but rather by a 
desire to hasten the execution. Contrary to usage, they 
scarcely allowed time for him to be conducted to the place of 
execution ; and seeing him bowed down with the weight of his 
burden, they violently constrained a poor African — a stranger 
whom they chanced to meet — to bear the cross. The suffer- 
ings which had been inflicted upon the human person of our 
Lord in the garden, in the palace of the high priest, and in the 
court of the Praetorium, had nearly exhausted his human frame, 
so that he could not advance with the speed which the mad- 
dened haste and hate of the high priests required. While, 
however, we attribute this weakness to natural causes, we must 
not forget that his word, at that very moment, could have pros- 
trated them all at his feet, as it did a few hours before, in the 



SIMON THE CYRENIAN. 399 

garden. But it was the Divine will that his human person 
should thus suffer, not only by stripes and bruises, but with a 
natural failure of its physical energies. Properly considered, 
it was one of the means which Divine wisdom appointed to 
conceal his Divinity within his humanity, not only from men, 
but from Satan, the chief adversary. 

From the time of our Lord's baptism, Satan, we may safely 
believe, had been endeavouring to fathom his nature. He first 
put it to the trial of allurements. These having failed, he tried 
the course of torture and ignominy. The superhuman patience 
of the Lord must have increased his fears and his doubts ; 
while the physical weakness of his body would naturally tend 
to allay, if not to remove his fears, as being inconsistent with 
the character of the Son of God, which he claimed. 

It has been made a question, whether Simon was a Jew or a 
Gentile. Some of the early Christian writers maintain that he 
was a Gentile, and therein they find an allegorical intimation 
of. the future call of the Gentiles. Judging by his name, how- 
ever, we should incline to the belief that he was a Jew. His 
residence, also, it is probable, was at Jerusalem. It is not an 
objection that he was a Cyrenian by birth, inasmuch as we 
learn by Acts vi. 9, and ii. 10, that many Jews from the city 
or province of Cyrene resided at Jerusalem. Cyrene was the 
capital of Libya, or rather the Pentapolis. Besides, Josephus, 
Jewish War, book vii. chap. 38, informs us that many Jews 
lived in that country. However this may be, the honour thus 
put upon him, though no honour was designed, was not the 
result of chance. God so ordered it that this man should be 
the first associated with Christ in the actual bearing of the 
cross, and in sharing of the ignominy and shame of it. On 
the part of those who thus rudely forced him to this service, it 
can be regarded only as an outrage, such as might be expected 
from a lawless mob ; but wherever the gospel has been 
preached, this service has been told for a memorial of him. 
Matt. xxvi. 13. 

Some have conjectured that Simon was returning from a 
little farm, owned or occupied by him in the neighbourhood of 
Jerusalem, when all at once he found himself in the midst of a 
great tumult, the cause of which was unknown to him, and that 
suddenly he was forced into a service proper only for con- 
demned criminals. His sudden arrest would naturally excite 
alarm for his own safety. Some interpreters suppose that 
Simon alone bore the cross; but from the language of Luke, 
we may perhaps infer that he bore only a part of the weight, 
following after Jesus. See Vossius Harm., lib. 2, cap. vi., 
sec. 7. But what must have been the feelings of Simon after- 



400 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

wards, when he knew the true character of the man whom he 
thus followed, and whose burden he thus shared ! With what 
force, too, must these Divine words have struck his mind, when 
he remembered this event ! "If any man will come after me, 
let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me." 
Matt. xvi. 24. Grotius, a commentator not much inclined to 
mystical interpretations, finds in this event an intimation of 
the call of the Gentiles. For Simon was the father of Alex- 
ander and Rufus, the former of which names is derived from 
the Greek language, and the latter from the Latin. The union 
of these Gentile names under that of their father, which is 
Hebrew, seemed, as Grotius thought, to intimate the union of 
Gentiles with Jews, under the banner of the cross of Christ. 
However this may be, these three persons were undoubtedly 
well known to the first readers of the Gospel of Mark. 

Luke xxiii. 27. "And there followed him a great company 
of people and women, which [al women] also bewailed and 
lamented him." 

This incident, and the reply of Jesus to these demonstrations 
of pity, are mentioned only by Luke, and they add a deep 
and melancholy interest to the scene. It is to be observed, 
also, that the words which follow are the first uttered by 
the Lord Jesus after those he addressed to Pilate. John 
xix. 11. For it is not probable he uttered any which one or 
another of the Evangelists has not recorded. But who com- 
posed this great company of people and of women? It is not 
probable that they were his disciples, though his person, his 
doctrines, and his wonderful works were probably known to 
them. Thus much we may infer from their sympathy, which 
must have been agreeable to the human soul of the Saviour, 
after the barbarous treatment he had received, and from his 
reply to them. 

And here we have another example of the mutability of the 
popular mind. Whilst the Lord Jesus was in the hands of his 
accusers before Pilate, he appeared to the people worthy of 
their hatred and rejection. This feeling, perhaps, was produced 
by the influence and artifices of the priests. But when left to 
themselves, the people remembered his works of beneficence 
and their own acknowledgment of him a few days before as 
their Messiah and King ; and they give testimony to his virtues 
by their grief. For observe, it was Jesus, not the malefactors, 
whom they lamented and bewailed; and we are, therefore, not 
to confound their sorrow with the sympathy which the common 
people often feel in the case of criminals whom they judge 
worthy of their fate. 

Luke xxiii. 28. "But Jesus, turning unto them, said, 



I 



CHRIST PREDICTS THE NATIONAL RUIN OF THE JEWS. 401 

Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me, but weep for your- 
selves and for your children." 

These words, and those he added, how pathetic ! Yet they 
convey no comfort, but tend rather to inspire terror. And we 
observe, that although the whole company of people may have 
joined in sympathy, if not in the lamentation, yet the reply 
was addressed only to the women who bewailed him. What he 
said, however, was a warning to all, and designed to secure a 
blessing which would be permanent, through a sincere repent- 
ance and faith in his name. For, as members of the doomed 
nation, even they partook in its doom, if not of its guilt. It is 
probable — indeed there can be little doubt — that these women, 
and those who followed in their company, regarded him as 
innocent, but unfortunate and powerless — as one who had been 
effectually overcome by his enemies. Yet if such were their 
sentiments, our Lord's words were adapted, if not designed, to 
show that their pity was misplaced. For oppressed as he 
appeared to be, he was marching onward to his victory. His 
exodus from humiliation to glory was designed, yea appointed, 
to be from the very cross he then bore. Well might he say, 
then, "Weep not for me, but weep for yourselves and for your 
children." 

Let us try now to imagine the scene. Behold the Saviour, 
bending under the weight of his cross, and so overcome as to 
need assistance to bear it. Yet upon hearing this cry, without 
asking leave, he stops — he raises his voice, and by its mys- 
terious power arrests the march of his executioners and the 
multitudes who were moving onward to the spectacle. He 
speaks with the same peaceful, tranquil dignity and power as 
ever before, even when in the temple. He turns their minds 
from what they then saw to the future, which they did not see, 
and, as on the day of his triumphal entry into Jerusalem, Luke 
xix. 41, so now again he forewarns them of the dreadful 
judgments which would soon overwhelm them. 

Luke xxiii. 29. "For behold, the days are coming, in the 
which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs 
that never bare, and the paps that never gave suck." 

The history of the Jewish war by Josephus shows how this 
prophecy was fulfilled. The Romans invested Jerusalem at the 
time of the feast of the Passover, when innumerable multitudes, 
from all parts of the country, had crowded into that city to 
engage in its solemnities. These were caught as in a net, from 
which there was no escape. Famine ensued, and so severe was 
it, that mothers ate their own offspring. Murders, intestinal 
discords, the fury of a portion of their own countrymen, the 
hatred and cruelty of the Romans, filled the city with blood 
51 



402 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

and carnage. But this was not all. The axe was now laid at 
the root of the tree, and it was to be hewn down, as John the 
Baptist had predicted. The days of wrath — of the vengeance, 
predicted by the prophets, and also by our Lord, had com- 
menced, in which all the evils and the curses foretold by Moses 
and the prophets were to come upon that people ; in which they 
were to fall by the edge of the sword, and to be carried captive 
into all nations, and their land, the land of the covenant, was 
to be delivered over to the Gentiles, and held by them in sub- 
jection until the times of the Gentiles should be fulfilled. Luke 
xxi. 24. It was to this national ruin, and the long train of woes 
which were to attend that race of men from generation to gene- 
ration, even to the end of the times appointed for the continu- 
ance of Gentile power, that our Lord alluded. Dan. ii. 44; 
vii. 26, 27. The full import of his words, therefore, cannot be 
learned from Josephus, the historian of the Jewish war. We 
must follow that people in their dispersion, and read their his- 
tory from that day to this, to ascertain their full import. Nay, 
more ; we must look forward into the future, and learn what 
are the afflictions which yet await them, before we can exhaust 
the meaning of these words of the Saviour. 

Luke xxiii. 30. " Then shall they begin to say to the moun- 
tains, Fall on us; and to the hills, Cover us." 

The prophet Hosea employs similar language when predicting 
the fall of Samaria, the capital of the kingdom of Israel, 
Hosea x. 8, and the apostle John also, when describing the 
opening of the sixth seal. Rev. vi. 16, see also Isa. ii. 10 — 19. 
It is the language of extreme terror, of confusion — of despair. 
It is not improbable that Hosea and our Lord refer in part to 
the same events. The sin of the ten tribes consisted chiefly in 
renouncing the house of David, and consequently the Messiah, 
who was to descend from him, and in renouncing the temple at 
Jerusalem for gods of their own making. The sins of the Jews 
at this time were of the same nature. They renounced the 
true Messiah before Pilate for a Messiah of their own imagina- 
tion — as different from the true Messiah as were the idols of 
Israel at Bethel and Dan from the God of Jacob, who was wor- 
shipped at Jerusalem. But when this same Messiah shall appear 
to them the second time, then indeed the scales shall fall from 
the eyes of some of them, who shall, then believe ; while the 
rest shall verify to the letter these prophecies of Hosea and 
John, as well as these words of the Lord Jesus. This will be 
at the conclusion of the days of the Divine vengeance for this 
sin of that people. 

Luke xxiii. 31. "For if these things be done in the green 
tree, what shall be done in the dry?" 



THE GREEN TREE AND THE DRY. 403 

This is figurative language. By the green tree, our Lord 
undoubtedly refers to himself. By the dry, it is equally plain 
he referred to that doomed people. And the sense may be para- 
phrased thus: "If the green tree, the good olive tree, from 
which the unction of grace flows, is thus treated, what can be 
expected for the dry, fruitless, useless tree but burning? What 
hope can the heirs of the curse cherish, if the supremely blessed 
one, the source from which, and the channel through which, all 
blessings come, must be bowed down by a shameful cross in 
order to avert the wrath which they have deserved?" How 
vain, then, is the hope of escape from the deserved wrath of 
God, except in the way of his own appointment ! It is only in 
that justice which exacted the humiliation, sufferings, and death 
of the Son of God, that we can learn the greatness of that 
mercy which pardons for the sake of Jesus Christ. 



CHAPTER XL 



THE CRUCIFIXION. 

Fulfilment of Isaiah liii. 12. — Different statements of the Evangelists reconciled. — 
An additional proof of Christ's Divine mission. — Sins against the Son of Man, 
sin against the Holy Ghost. — The seamless coat. — Seeming discrepancy be- 
tween Mark xv. 25 and John xix. 14 reconciled. — The malefactor's rebuke — 
his penitence, faith, and prayer — his testimony to the innocence of our Lord — 
his instruction in the mystery of redemption. — The consciousness of the soul 
in its state of separation from the body. — Existence of affection in the future 
state.— All things accomplished necessary for the perfecting of the new crea- 
tion. — Public displays of the Divine power. — A new dispensation. — Risen 
saints. — Impressiveness of the last scene. — Providential arrangements for the 
accomplishment of Divine purposes. — Nicodemus's care of the body of our 
Lord. — Jewish mode of burial. — The evidence of our Lord's resurrection by 
Divine power placed beyond all doubt. 

Luke xxiii. 32. "And there were also two others — male- 
factors — led with him to be put to death." * 

In such company was our blessed Lord taken to the place of 
crucifixion; thus fulfilling Isa. liii. 12, "He was numbered 
with the transgressors." When we suffer unjustly for any 
cause, we naturally desire that we may not be confounded with 

* In the folio edition of the authorized translation, published in 1611, and 
in many later editions, this verse is printed, "And there were also two other 
malefactors led with him," &c. In some of the earlier English versions it is 
better rendered: " And there were two others, which were evil doers, led," &c. 
Both Tyndale and Cranmer omit the word other. "And there were two evil 
doers led with him to be slain." The error of the authorized version is cor- 
rected in modern editions, as above. The Rhemish version is: "And there 
were led also other two, malefactors, with him to be executed." Wickliff 
renders thus: "Also other tweie wicked men weren led with hym to be slayn." 



404 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

those who are really guilty of crimes. But in this life just 
discriminations are not always made. God in his providence 
often permits his true and faithful servants to be confounded, 
in the judgment of men, with those who are his enemies. 

Matt, xxvii. 33. "And when they were come to a place 
called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull," — 

The word Grolgotha is transferred into our version from the 
Greek text. In the Hebrew it properly signifies the head. 
The same word occurs in Exod. xvi. 16, where it is translated 
'persons ; and in Numb. i. 2, where it is rendered by the word 
names. It occurs also in 2 Kings ix. 35, where it is translated 
skull; in the ancient Greek translation xpaveov, from which we 
get the word cranium, and in the Vulgate, or ancient Latin 
translation, Calvarium, from whence the supposed place of the 
crucifixion has been called Mount Calvary. 

The common opinion of commentators is, that this place was 
so called from the fact that it was the appointed place for the 
execution of criminals. Grotius, however, found in Joshua v. 9, 
as he supposed, a prophetical allusion to this place, and the 
event which was now about to take place. 

Some commentators adopting the opinion of Grotius, connect 
with it a tradition which prevailed extensively in the early 
Christian Church, that Adam, the father of our race, was 
buried there ; and that God so ordered it, that the reproach of 
man, that is, his sin, should be expiated at the very place where 
the first sinner of mankind paid the penalty of his transgression. 
Following out the same idea, they even understand the words of 
the apostle Paul in Eph. v. 14, as if they were primarily ad- 
dressed to Adam. It is unnecessary to say that we have no 
evidence whatever of the burial-place of Adam, and all such 
interpretations, without facts to support them, are at best 
nothing better than fanciful conjectures. Still we may, with- 
out rashness, so far adopt the idea of Grotius, that the reproach 
of man was at that time and place rolled away or removed; 
inasmuch as a way was at that time opened, in which God 
could be just, and yet justify those who believe in Jesus. See 
Vossius' Harm. lib. ii. cap. vi. § 16, for a full account of this 
tradition. 

Matt, xxvii. 34. "They gave him vinegar to drink, min- 
gled with gall, and when he had tasted thereof he would not 
drink." 

If we turn to Mark xv. 23, we find a different statement, 
which has caused the commentators difficulty. Mark says: 
"And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh, but 
he received it not." 

The whole difficulty disappears the moment we receive the 



CHRIST CRUCIFIED. 405 

assertions of both Evangelists as true. We have observed 
repeatedly that each Evangelist omits something that another 
supplies. Accordingly we are to believe that three potions 
were offered our Lord, viz. two at the place called Golgotha, 
and the third, after he had been some time on the cross. That 
mentioned by Matthew was no doubt offered him in malice and 
derision. That mentioned by Mark had intoxicating qualities, 
and was commonly given on such occasions. We are here 
informed that he refused both. We should read in this 
connection the sixty-ninth Psalm, some portions of which can 
only apply to the Lord Jesus Christ, see verse 21. To this 
cruelty, it has been supposed by some, Moses alludes, Deut. 
xxxii. 32. A reason why the potion mentioned by Mark 
should be refused, is to be found in the priestly office or act 
our Lord was then performing. He was about to lay his body 
as a victim upon the altar, and to enter into the Holy of 
Holies, as our great High Priest, and the law commanded 
Aaron, "Do not drink wine nor strong drink, thou nor thy 
sons with thee, when ye go into the tabernacle of the congre- 
gation," Levit. x. 8, 9. 

Luke xxiii. 33. "And when they were come to the place 
called Calvary, there they crucified him." 

The word Calvary in this verse, and the word skull in Matt, 
xxvii. 33, are only different translations of the same word, so 
that we might read this verse thus: "And when they were 
come to the place which is called skull, there they crucified 
him." The same place, we have seen, was also called Gol- 
gotha. Whether this place was properly a mount may well be 
doubted. But without enlarging on this topic, we may dwell 
a moment upon the Divine simplicity of the Evangelists. They 
only say: "there they crucified him." They express no 
astonishment, or compassion, or feeling; they indulge in no 
reflection on the event; nothing declamatory, nothing homi- 
letic. They do not describe the form of the cross — as some 
commentators essay to do — although several different forms 
were used; nor do they speak of the nails by which he was 
fastened, nor explain how it was done, or by whom. All they 
say is, "there they crucified him." It is only from the 
history of the resurrection that we learn that nails were driven 
through his hands and his feet. Who, without the guidance of 
the Holy Spirit, could thus briefly speak of the cruel death of 
a much loved friend ! When the Evangelists wrote these brief 
narratives they had learned too much of the mystery of the 
cross, and the place it occupies in the Divine government, 
to enter into details concerning the manner or the means of the 
crucifixion. Were it possible for us to search the wide uni- 



406 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

verse, and that too through all the ages of eternity, we may 
"well believe it would not be possible to find another event so 
wonderful, so sublime, so far-reaching, so enduring in its con- 
sequences as that noted by these four words. The mysteries 
of all preceding ages terminated in this, and the mysteries of 
all future ages will be opened to the wondering universe by the 
progressive development of this one mystery of the cross of 
Christ. The simple fact speaks infinitely more than men or 
angels can ever unfold. Angels desire to look into the great 
fact, 1 Pet. i. 12, in the contemplation of which, matters of 
circumstance which might interest the curiosity of men, are 
entirely lost sight of, as things of no moment. 

Luke xxiii. 33. " There they crucified him and the male- 
factors, one on the right hand and the other on the left [John 
xix. 18,] and Jesus in the midst." 

The suffering of our Saviour in such company would natu- 
rally incline the popular mind to believe that he also was a 
malefactor. But had they understood their own prophets, 
which were read in their hearing every Sabbath day, Acts xiii. 
27, they would have perceived that such companionship in 
suffering, so far from casting a doubt upon his innocence, 
proved his Divine mission : for it was written of the Messiah 
whom they expected, according to their own prophets, Luke 
xxiv. 25 — 27, that thus should he suffer. For Mark adds, 
citing Isa. liii. 12 : 

Mark xv. 28. "And the Scripture was fulfilled which 
saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors" — that is, 
he was treated as though he were himself a transgressor. It 
is impossible to understand these words of Isaiah of any other 
than the Messiah. Before the coming of Christ, the Jews did 
apply this prophecy to the Messiah, and the Chaldee para- 
phrase, see Walton s Polyglot, expressly names him as the 
person intended. It is true, the author of that paraphrase 
takes the unwarrantable liberty of changing the predictions 
of ignominy and sufferings into victories and triumphs, 
answerable to the hopes of the nation, and worthy, as he 
supposes, of the dignity of Messiah. But the text of the 
prophet, which remains uncorrupted, is irreconcilable with the 
paraphrase, while the paraphrast admits that the Messiah is the 
person really intended by the prophet. 

Had our Lord therefore suffered in company with just men, 
this prediction would not have been accomplished. In the 
strict sense, indeed, it was impossible that he should have been 
numbered in this world with any who were not transgressors ; 
for all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Rom. 
iii. 23. But it is not in this sense the prophet is to be under- 



CHRIST CRUCIFIED WITH THE MALEFACTORS. 407 

stood. He means flagrant offenders against the laws of men, 
as well as the laws of God. There is also a further intimation, 
which must be noticed. It is probable the Jews expected that 
God would make some distinction between him and the noto- 
rious offenders with whom he was joined, if he were really the 
promised Messiah. 

This will appear as we proceed. It is sufficient to say at 
present, that the absence of Divine interposition, to save him 
from the pains and death of the cross, completed the parallel 
intended by the prophet in these words : " He was numbered 
with the transgressors" — that is, until he had finished the work 
of redemption. 

We observe, however, the words of the prophet are indefinite. 
He does not say with how many transgressors, nor define the 
place among them he should occupy. But the providence of 
God so arranged these particulars, as to give even to his suffer- 
ings and shame, the distinction and dignity which belonged to 
him as Messiah. His cross was converted into a tribunal or 
place of regal power, and planted between those of the two 
criminals, at his right and left, who represented the two great 
classes, into which he will, at the great day, divide all others, 
Matt. xxv. 33 ; and from this place of suffering he actually 
dispensed pardon to one of the malefactors, while he left the 
other to die in his crimes. 

Luke xxiii. 34. "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them, 
for they know not what they do." 

It is supposed by some, that our Lord, in these words, prayed 
only for the soldiers who were nailing him to the cross, and 
that the prayer was in fact uttered while they were performing 
that act. Others suppose our Lord intended to include all who 
were in any way instrumental in procuring his sufferings, and 
this appears to be the true sense of the petition. That the 
sins of the different actors were unequal, there can be no doubt. 
The Roman soldiers, it is probable, were much less enlightened 
than their governor, and he had much less knowledge of Divine 
things than the most unlettered Jew. Then again, among the 
Jews there were different degrees of knowledge. Still, none of 
them were aware of the sin they were committing; because 
they did not understand their own Scriptures, but to a large 
extent had lost their true meaning by false expositions. The 
apostle Peter alludes to their ignorance in extenuation of their 
guilt, Acts iii. 17, while he charges their act upon them as a 
crime, notwithstanding it was done by the determinate counsel 
and foreknowledge of God. Acts ii. 23. The apostle Paul 
also declares, 1 Cor. ii. 8, in the plainest terms, that none of 
the princes, or great ones, of this world knew the mystery of 



408 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

the Lord's person, and this ignorance was necessary, in order 
to the fulfilment of the Divine purposes; for had they known 
really and truly that he was God, manifest in the flesh, the 
Lord of glory, they would not have crucified him. And upon 
this ground partly, we suppose, our Lord declared, that sins 
against the Son of Man, that is, all sins committed against his 
person, while he tabernacled in the flesh, were pardonable, 
while those committed against the Holy Ghost could not be 
pardoned. Mark iii. 28, 29, 30 ; Matt. xii. 31, 32 ; Luke xii. 
10. Without entering into a full discussion of the reasons for 
this difference, it will be sufficient for the present to say, that 
it depended in part upon the difference between the nature and 
objects of the dispensation of our Lord's personal ministry, 
and the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. The Son of Man 
came to suffer, and to lay down his life as a ransom for many. 
The efficacy of his atonement extended even to the greatest of 
sins against his person ; that, even, of taking the life, which he 
came to lay down. But the sin against the Holy Ghost has 
respect to a new dispensation, nor can it, as the sin against the 
Saviour's person, result in any such consequence. It issues in 
no shedding of blood, whereby to remove its guilt. On the 
contrary, such a sinner can only place before himself the 
fearful expectation of a coming judgment and fiery indignation 
which will destroy, not save him. 

In this prayer, we have a means of judging of the greatness 
of the Saviour's mercy. Though the priests and rulers were 
actuated by hatred and envy, yet he imputes their crime rather 
to their ignorance than to these causes. His prayer is general, 
and for all without distinction. He pardons them, and asks 
pardon for them, at the very time they were adding derision 
and blasphemy to his sufferings. Had he not been truly the 
Son of God, and the disposer of his own gifts, justice would 
have regulated and given limits to his petitions. But as sove- 
reign, he was free, and as the Son of God, he had the power 
over all that he asked of his Father ; and from his cross he put 
up his unqualified petition: "Father, forgive them, for they 
know not what they do." 

How forcibly does this example of the Lord Jesus impress the 
exhortations of Paul, in Bom. xii. 9 — 21. 

John xix. 19. ^ "And Pilate wrote a title," (probably at 
the time of Ms finally passing sentence,) 

Mark xv. 26. "The superscription of his accusation," 

Matt, xxvii. 37. }■ "And they set it up over his head," (on 
the cross, John xix. 19.) 

Luke xxiii. 38. "in letters of Greek and Latin and He- 
brew. 



THE WRITING OVER THE CROSS. 409 

John xix. 19. ") "And the writing was," 

Matt, xxvii. 37. V "This is Jesus" 

John xix. 19. J "Of Nazareth, the king of the Jews." 

It was a custom of the Romans to denote either by a writing 
or by the voice of a herald or some minister of justice, the 
cause for which the condemned person suffered. When a writ- 
ing was used, it was suspended from the instrument of his pun- 
ishment, or from some other object near. A similar custom 
prevails, it is said, at present in Turkey. The Romans call it 
the Titulus, Sueton. in Calig. cap. 32, in Domit. cap. 10. John 
calls it by the same name, xix. 19 ; Luke, xxiii. 38, uses the 
word Epigraph. We find an example of this custom in the 
account we have received of the martyrdom of Polycarp, a 
disciple of the apostle John. 

If we compare these epigraphs or superscriptions as they are 
given us by the four Evangelists, they all differ slightly. Ac- 
cording to Matthew it was as follows: "This is Jesus, the king 
of the Jews." According to Mark, it was simply, "The king 
of the Jews." According to Luke, "This is the Tcing of the 
Jews." Finally, John reads it, "Jesus of Nazareth, the king 
of the Jews." This discrepancy has been urged as an objection 
against the inspiration of the Evangelists, but without any just 
ground. Observe, that according to all the Evangelists the 
superscription ended with the words, "The king of the Jews." 
Matthew prefixes to these words, "This is Jesus;" Luke the 
words, "This is," and John the words, " Jesus of Nazareth." 
The variation does not at all affect the substance of the writing. 
But we may account for it in this way : Pilate wrote it in three 
different languages, and it is not improbable that he slightly 
varied it in each language. Let the objector prove that he did 
not. Thus in the Greek, he may have written, "This is the 
king of the Jews," while in Latin he may have inserted the 
name Jesus, " This is Jesus, the king of the Jews." Still dif- 
ferently he may have worded the inscription in Hebrew, "Jesus, 
the Nazarene (for that is the word actually used by John,) the 
king of the Jews." Indeed it is far more probable that such 
slight variations existed in the original compositions of Pilate, 
than that he (Pilate) should have translated the sentence first 
written, word by word, with exact literality into the other two 
languages. Assuming that such was the fact, each Evangelist 
gives the inscription in that one of the forms which he preferred, 
translating it, if he selected the Latin or the Hebrew, into the 
Greek language with substantial accuracy. Nor was it neces- 
sary that the Evangelists should preserve the several forms un- 
mixed. They wrote in a language different from those in which 
two of the superscriptions were composed, and in so far as the 
52 



410 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

cause or accusation set forth in these various titles was con- 
cerned, they performed the office of translators, and as such, it 
was their object to give the sense rather than the form of the 
original words. 

John xix. 20 — 22. " This title then read many of the Jews 
[for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh unto the city, 
and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin]. Then 
said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate : Write not ' The 
king of the Jews,' but that he said, 'I am the king of the 
Jews.'" 

We learn from this passage what the chief priests considered 
the substance of the superscription in every one of the forms in 
which it was composed. It was the official title ascribed by 
Pilate to Jesus. 

But why should Pilate write the superscription in three lan- 
guages ? The Jews would have preferred that none should be 
written rather than such a one as this, or if this must be 
adopted, they would have preferred it in the language least 
understood. No doubt Divine Providence designed this arrange- 
ment for the more extensive promulgation of the truth it con- 
tained. As to Pilate's motive, we may reasonably conjecture 
that he caused it to be written in Latin because it was the 
language of the Roman empire, and most proper to be used in all 
official public acts. It was thought essential to the dignity of a 
Roman magistrate, in the times of the republic, to speak only in 
Latin on public occasions. Vol. Max. book 2, chap. 2, § 2. 
Tiberius the emperor, was a great stickler for this point of 
Roman dignity. Suet, in Tib. chap. 71. The inscription was 
probably first written in Latin. A similar one was also written 
in Hebrew, probably because it was the language of the country, 
and in Greek probably because many Hellenist Jews, from dif- 
ferent countries, were present at that feast, and understood no 
other language but the Greek, which indeed was then very 
common in Palestine. 

The inscription was probably written in large letters, so that 
it was legible at a distance. It was put in a coospicuous place 
where all persons passing by could not fail to see it, and the 
only reason it announced for the mournful spectacle, was the 
fact that he was "the king of the Jews." To the mind of a 
Jew at that time, this title was equivalent to Messiah or Christ ; 
the great King promised by the prophets and expected by the 
nation from the time of Abraham. The Magi or wise men from 
the East, Herod, the chief priests, and the scribes, so under- 
stood this title. Matt. ii. 1 — 6. 

By this superscription, therefore, Pilate virtually declared 
him to be the Messiah — as truly as the Evangelist Matthew did 



pilate's refusal to alter the superscription. 411 

when he described him as the Christ the Son of David, the Son 
of Abraham. Matt. i. 1. Thus understood, we can imagine how 
offensive this designation must have been to the priests who had 
so perseveringly demanded the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus. 
It was the testimony of the judge and governor against them, 
as the murderers of their own Messiah ; of that king who was 
the expectation and the glory of the nation. They felt the force 
of the epigraph, as their appeal to Pilate showed. Some per- 
sons perceive in it a sneer at the hope of the nation, and an 
insinuation that such would be the end of all who should assume 
that character in opposition to the Roman power; but we take 
a different view, as will be seen from the passage next noticed. 

John xix. 22. "Pilate answered, What I have written I 
have written." 

We learn from this passage that Pilate regarded the super- 
scription as his own act, and whatever might have been his 
motive in preparing it, he declared by this title a momentous 
truth, as did Caiaphas when he prophesied the death of the 
Lord Jesus. John xi. 49 — 51. But let us pause a moment on 
this circumstance ; had some passer-by merely remarked that 
the superscription was not correct, and that it ought to have 
been so written as to charge the sufferer with usurping the royal 
office — or had the chief priests done no more than complain of 
it among themselves, or before the people, there would have 
been some ground to suppose that Pilate had adopted this form 
of words inadvertently, and that he would have instantly ordered 
it to be altered, had his attention been called to it. The provi- 
dence of God, however, took care to remove all grounds for 
such suppositions. The priests were made to feel the full force 
of the inscription, and to foresee the consequences to them and 
their nation of this acknowledgment of the Lord Jesus, by 
public authority, as the king of the Jews. They therefore 
assemble and proceed formally in a body to Pilate, from whom 
thus far, they had extorted everything they desired, and repre- 
sent to him the error of the superscription, and how easy it was 
to make it exactly correct. Write not "The king," but write 
"He said I am the king," &c. Such a change they would natu- 
rally say was necessary as well for his honour as their own, 
since a real legitimate title to royalty could not have made him 
a criminal, but only the usurpation of royalty. "Say not 
therefore that he is the king ; but that he claimed to be the 
king of the Jews. You have as great an interest to make this 
change as we have." 

Judging from the compliant disposition of Pilate thus far, 
we should not have anticipated inflexible firmness, in a matter 
seemingly so slight, so reasonable, and so well calculated to 



412 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

cover up his own iniquity. What Pilate's motive was for per- 
emptorily refusing to alter a letter of the superscription, it 
would be useless to inquire. It may have been his natural 
obstinacy, perverseness of temper, or he may have regarded 
the request of the priests an impertinent interference in his 
concerns, or he may have been unconscious of any motive. 
However this may be, we see clearly an overruling Providence, 
both in dictating the words of the title, and in preventing the 
slightest change of it. Pilate wrote this, not of himself, but 
being the governor of Judea, there was a necessity that by a 
public authentic act, he should announce to the world, from the 
cross itself, the true character of the Lord Jesus, and that 
character as the only cause for which he suffered. Had Pilate 
been a prophet of God, speaking by the inspiration of the Holy 
Spirit, he could not have given a more fitting answer to this 
insidious request of the chief priests — " What I have written, I 
have written — " It was God's truth, and not to be changed. 

John xix. 23. " Then the soldiers, when they had crucified 
Jesus, took his garments and made four parts, to every soldier 
a part — and also his coat." 

By this passage we know the number of soldiers who par- 
ticipated in crucifying our Lord. It was the usage among the 
Romans, as has been observed already, that soldiers should 
execute sentences of death pronounced by civil magistrates. 
It was also their usage, as it is still in some countries, that the 
clothes of the criminal should belong to the executioners of the 
sentence. Humanity was not commonly the virtue of a Roman 
soldier. On the contrary, his ferocity, when but little excited, 
became worse than brutal. We may regard our Lord's human 
frame as a lamb among four wolves, who rudely stretch it on 
the cross, and, regardless of his patience and mildness, nail to 
it his outstretched limbs, and then hastily and roughly raise 
and plant it in the place prepared for it. This done, they take 
their seats near by, and unfeelingly divide his clothing among 
them. 

But the scene suggests other reflections. Our blessed Lord, 
on one occasion, in allusion to his own poverty, said, "The 
foxes have holes, the birds of the air have nests, but the Son of 
Man hath not where to lay his head." Matt. viii. 20. Here 
we behold him nailed to a hard cross — his head crowned with 
thorns — his clothing divided before his eyes by his executioners, 
and himself bearing the shame of nakedness. This also was pre- 
dicted. Ps. xxii. 18. Yet this was he of whom it was written 
in another Psalm, civ. 2, " Who covereth himself with light as 
with a garment," — and the earth with beauty and magnificence, 
exceeding the splendour of kings. Matt. vi. 28, 29. Well 



CHRIST'S COAT. 413 

might the apostle Paul magnify the grace manifested in this 
act of self-humiliation. "Ye know the grace of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he 
became poor, that ye, through his poverty, might be made 
rich." He laid aside his robes of glory, and allowed himself 
to be deprived of the habiliments of his human person, that he 
might array his redeemed in fine linen, clean and white, Rev. 
xix. 8, and exalt them to a partnership with him in his throne. 
Rev. iii. 21. 

John xix. 23, 24. "Now the coat was without seam, woven 
from the top throughout. They said, therefore, among them- 
selves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it whose it shall 
be." 

Luke xxiii. 34. "And they cast lots," 

John xix. 24. "That the Scripture might be fulfilled," 

Matt, xxvii. 35. "Which was spoken by the prophet." 

John xix. 24. "Which saith, They parted my raiment 
among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These 
things, therefore, the soldiers did." 

It is wonderful with what minuteness the sufferings of our 
Lord were foretold. We have noticed the custom which assigned 
the clothing of a person condemned to a capital punishment, as 
a perquisite to the executioners. The custom was observed in 
this instance, except in respect to one garment. That garment, 
according to the custom, would have been rent into four parts, 
and each of the soldiers would have had a part. The rending, 
however, would, as the soldiers thought, have spoiled it, and 
they chose to commit the disposal of it to the chance of the lot. 
The reason why this deviation from the custom was made is not 
foretold, Ps. xxii. 18, but simply the fact. The Evangelist 
informs us how the fulfilment was brought about. But observe 
with what coolness and indifference these soldiers discuss a mat- 
ter concerning their interest. They talk upon it among them- 
selves, while examining its texture, perhaps admiring its work- 
manship, regardless of the suffering of him to whom it belonged 
— and profoundly ignorant of the great mystery, in which they 
were acting so important a part. 

Some commentators regard this garment as typical of the 
unity of the Church, and perhaps we should not err in so con- 
sidering it. For the Church is indeed one ; having one glorious 
Lord, one faith, one baptism, one hope, and it will ultimately 
appear as one great body showing forth the glory and the praises 
of its Head. But if we thus interpret, we must understand by 
the Church, not the visible body of professing" Christians in this 
world of sin, but that perfected body which our blessed Lord 
will, at his coming, gather to himself, resembling, almost in 



414 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

nothing, that mixed body which is aptly represented in the 
parable of the tares of the field. We need not say that this 
visible Church is rent with strifes and divisions, by those who 
have scarcely the form of godliness, or at least exhibit nothing 
of the power of godliness by holy living. 

Matt, xxvii. 36. "And sitting down, they watched him 
there." 

It was the usage of the Romans, and is still the usage of most 
nations, that ministers of justice should remain at the place of 
the execution of criminals, until the sentence is carried into 
complete effect. 

In respect to the Saviour, who was treated as though he were 
such, it was necessary that there should be actual ocular wit- 
nesses of his death ; because if that were not certain, his resur- 
rection from the dead would have been an uncertain thing. 
Both Jews and Gentiles were present on this occasion. The 
Roman centurion, with his entire company, or at least a con- 
siderable detachment of it, was present also to restrain the 
priests and people from acts of violence, which in their nature 
would tend to accelerate the Saviour's death before the time he 
should declare all things finished, and voluntarily surrender his 
spirit into the hands of the Father. 

Mark xv. 25. "And it was the third hour, and they cruci- 
fied him." 

The Jews, as well as the Romans, divided the natural day 
and night into four watches each. They also used the division 
of time into hours; but it is observable that no mention is made 
in the New Testament of the second, fourth, fifth, or eighth 
hour, and very rarely of any, but the hours at which their 
watches commenced, Matt. xx. 6, in which the other hours were 
included. The Romans commenced their computation of time 
by hours at midnight. Hence the sixth Roman hour corres- 
ponded to six o'clock in the morning, but as they reckoned by 
the watch hours, the sixth hour was deemed to continue till nine 
o'clock, a. M. The Jews, on the other hand, began their com- 
putation at six o'clock, A. M., and consequently the third hour 
spoken of in Mark xv. 25, commenced at nine o'clock, which, 
as just explained, was the expiration of the sixth, and the com- 
mencement of the ninth Roman hour. In this way we recon- 
cile the seeming discrepancy between John xix. 14 and Mark 
xv. 25. 

Luke xxiii. 35. "And the people stood beholding: and 
the rulers also with them derided him, saying, He saved 
others, let him save himself if he be the Christ, the chosen of 
God." 

It is truly astonishing that the people could behold such a 



THE DERISION OF THE RULERS. 415 

spectacle without the most solemn and even painful emotions. 
Yet the bitter hatred of the rulers to Jesus, and their influence 
with the people, was so great, that neither seemed to take any 
notice of the malefactors. They showed no spite or hatred to 
them; they uttered no revilings against them, though justly 
condemned, but only against the Lord. They could not deny 
that he had exhibited superhuman powers. He had saved 
others by relieving them of incurable diseases — had raised 
several persons from the dead, — well known facts which ought 
to have convinced them of his Divine power and mission, and 
yet they make this the ground of taunt and reviling. "Let 
him save himself if he be the Christ, the chosen of God." This 
shows how profoundly ignorant they were of the mystery of 
redemption. They demanded, as a proof of his Messiahship, 
the miraculous exertion of his power to deliver himself from 
their hands, not knowing that such a proof was inconsistent 
with the very object of his mission. Matt. xxvi. 53, 54; 
Luke xxiv. 26. 

Besides, the very proof they demanded would not have been 
more conclusive than the raising of Lazarus from the dead. 
For the power to restore life to the dead cannot be less than 
Divine, and adequate to accomplish anything which its pos- 
sessor might choose to do. 

Observe, also, the rashness, not to say the impiety of such a 
demand. For if he was the Christ, the chosen of God, as 
their words implied he might be, it was impious for them to 
prescribe to him the proofs he should give of his character. 
Nay, more, the proofs of his Messiahship were divinely ap- 
pointed, and sufficiently made known to them in their own 
Scriptures. It is evident, too, from this passage, that al- 
though their views of the character of the true Messiah fell far 
short of the reality, yet they regarded him as a great Being, 
and the special object of the Divine favour — as God's elect or 
chosen one. 

Luke xxiii. 36, 37. " And the soldiers also mocked him, 
coming to him and offering him vinegar, and saying, If thou be 
the king of the Jews, save thyself." 

It is supposed by some commentators that the vinegar had 
been brought to that place for the refreshment of the soldiers, 
who were appointed to watch the cross. The offer of some 
of it to the suffering Saviour, we are told, was made in 
mockery. They accompanied the act with words of derision. 
What idea these soldiers (if they were Romans or Gentiles) 
entertained of the king of the Jews, we have no means of 
knowing. What they said may be thus expressed, "If thou 
be the king of the Jews, so vaunted for mighty powers, now 



416 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

is the time to exert them in saving thyself. It will soon be too 
late." 

Matt, xxvii. 39—43; Mark xv. 29, 32. "And they that 
passed by reviled him, and railed on him, wagging their heads 
and saying, Ah ! thou that destroyest the temple and buildest 
it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come 
down from the cross. Likewise the chief priests, mocking him, 
with the scribes and elders, said among themselves, He saved 
others ; himself he cannot save. If he be the king of Israel, 
let him now come down from the cross and we will believe him. 
He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he will have 
him ; for he said, I am the Son of God. Let Christ the king 
of Israel descend now from the cross, that we may see and 
believe." 

In Psalm xxi. 7, 8, we find several predictions which were 
fulfilled by this cruel conduct. The wagging of the head was 
a sign of contempt and derision, Job xvi. 4; Ps. cix. 25; Isa. 
xxxvii. 22. The stress of all these revilings was laid on our 
Lord's seeming inability to deliver himself from their hands, 
and the absence of any Divine interposition in his behalf. His 
claim to be the Son of God — of power to build the temple in 
three days, John ii. 19, 20, though they perverted his words, 
and entirely misunderstood their application, seemed to be 
confuted by his apparently helpless condition at that time. The 
proofs he had given in support of his claims all went for 
nothing. In bitter irony they call him " Christ the king of 
Israel," coupling with this title their demand for further 
evidence. " Let Christ the king of Israel descend now from 
the cross, that we may see and believe." There he was, nailed 
by the hands and by the feet, and suspended between heaven 
and earth — a condition, as they thought, to which the Son of 
God, the king of Israel, the promised Messiah, could not be 
brought, and the proof they demanded was, that he should 
deliver himself from the spikes by which his flesh was pierced, 
and descend to the earth. This they seemed to regard as a 
fair challenge. Upon his doing these things (they said) they 
would believe. But that was not a kind of proof they had the 
right to demand; nor one which it was our Lord's purpose to 
give. Even if he had given it, though it might have convinced 
their minds, it would have left their hearts unchanged. What 
they needed was not evidence, but a new nature. We can 
easily conceive that had our Lord been transfigured before 
them on the cross, as he had been in the presence of Peter, 
James, and John, and if Moses and Elias had appeared to him 
in their glorious forms, the effect would have been over- 
whelming. These merciless revilers would have trembled at 



EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT TO CHANGE THE HEART. 417 

the sight and become as dead men. Just such was the effect 
produced on the soldiers who watched the sepulchre on the 
morning of the resurrection, by the descent of the angel and 
his glorious appearance. But this produced no permanent 
influence on their minds, nor on the minds of the priests to 
whom the soldiers related the miracle. Though perfectly 
convinced of the fact of the resurrection, they bribed the 
soldiers to tell a lie, and the soldiers, instead of being con- 
vinced of the Divine nature of Christ, and the tremendous 
sin of falsehood in such a matter, took the money and did 
as they were taught by the priests. Yet in so doing they 
exposed themselves to the severest punishment. For in- 
formation on this subject, see the Digests of Justinian^ title 
de re militari, lib. 49, tit. 16. The resurrection was indeed 
a greater miracle than a descent from the cross would have 
been, which the chief priests and the scribes demanded, and 
yet that miracle, as we have just seen, .had no effect to change 
their hearts. 

But evidence of this kind would have been inconsistent with 
the Divine plan ; and our Lord, during his public ministry, told 
them so: for when the Pharisees and Sadducees demanded a 
sign from heaven — that is, some higher display of power than 
any he had publicly exhibited — he told them plainly that no 
other kind of evidence than that which his daily works fur- 
nished would be given, except the evidence of his resurrection 
from the dead — -for that was the meaning of his allusion to 
Jonas the prophet — that is to say: evidence which would not 
be given until the trial of the nation was over, and they had 
rejected him and put him to death, and had thus sealed their 
national doom and destruction. 

We may add, that this same mysterious Being, who then 
hung before them, as they thought, helpless, and abandoned of 
God, had appeared to their fathers upon Mount Sinai, in fire, 
with thunders and lightnings, causing the mountain itself to 
quake. Exod. xix. 14 — 19; Heb. xii. 18 — 24. Yet this exhi 
bition of the Divine majesty and power did not prevent them 
from falling into idolatry, even before they moved from the 
place where they beheld these wonders. Had our Lord per- 
formed every work which the Jews demanded publicly in the 
face of the nation ; had he walked on the sea, or cast him- 
self from the pinnacle of the temple unharmed, as Satan 
tempted him to do ; had he summoned legions of angels to his 
presence, and caused them to appear rank over rank in their 
glorious forms, such exhibitions would, no doubt, have over- 
powered their minds, and might have compelled their obedience 
to him through their fears; but their reviling, envious, mur- 
53 



418 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

derous hearts would have remained unchanged. The work of 
redemption through sufferings and death, which our blessed 
Lord was now performing, was indispensable, according to the 
Divine plan, to purchase from the throne of God the office of 
the Holy Spirit, by whose agency alone can any of our fallen 
race be prepared for the kingdom of God. 

Luke xxiii. 39. ^ "And one of the malefactors, which 

Mark xv. 32. >was crucified with him, cast the same in 

Matt, xxvii. 44. J his teeth, and railed on him, saying, If 
thou be the Christ, save thyself and us — and reviled him." 

John omits this circumstance altogether. Matthew says 
generally, "the thieves also that were crucified with him cast 
the same in his teeth," and Mark also includes both, "And 
they that were crucified with him reviled him." Only Luke 
records the fact with precision, which he does, as we suppose, 
chiefly with the view to introduce another deeply interesting 
incident which the other Evangelists also omit. There is really 
no discrepancy between the Evangelists. Each, it is apparent, 
omits something, which his purpose did not require him to 
record. John, we have seen, does not notice this circumstance 
at all. Matthew and Mark omit the reproof which one malefac- 
tor gave to the other ; also his prayer to the Saviour, and the 
Saviour's answer to him, which Luke records thus : 

Luke xxiii. 40, 41. "But the other answering rebuked 
him, saying : Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the 
same condemnation ? and we indeed justly, for we receive the 
due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing 
[dro7rov] amiss." 

We are at liberty to suppose that even Luke (though more 
particular than the others upon this point) does not record all 
the words which passed between the three sufferers at this time. 
His chief purpose was to record for the instruction of the 
church, the repentance, faith, and prayer of one of the malefac- 
tors, which certainly did not occur without design. 

It was a wonderful exhibition of the power and grace of 
Christ in his greatest humiliation. We have no reason to be- 
lieve that this malefactor was a believer in Jesus before he was 
brought to the cross, but rather the contrary. Our Lord pro- 
tected all his disciples from the perils by which they were 
surrounded, John xviii. 8, 9, while he was with them. Had 
this malefactor been a believer before, we may safely conclude 
that the Lord would have protected him, as he did his other 
disciples. Nor are we obliged to believe that his conversion 
took place while he was in prison, or while he was on the way 
to Calvary, or at the instant he was elevated on the cross. On 
the contrary, as Matthew and Mark inform us, though Luke 



THE PENITENT MALEFACTOR. 419 

omits this circumstance, he joined, that is, at first, with the 
other malefactor in his revilings, but our gracious Lord, to 
magnify his grace, and to show his great power and authority 
as the judge of men, even on his cross, suddenly, by his divine 
energy, touched his heart and changed it — gave him true faith 
and a clear discernment of his own divine nature — stopped his 
revilings and put into his mouth words of reproof, confession, 
faith, love, confidence, hope, prayer. Why, we may ask, should 
not such an event occur at such a time and under such circum- 
stances ? And why should such an event occur but to show the 
power and grace of Christ ? And why, if such were the divine 
purpose, should it not occur under circumstances which tend 
most to magnify these attributes of our blessed Lord? And 
how could this be more strikingly and impressively done than 
by thus changing words of reviling and taunt into words of 
repentance and faith and love ?* 

This view of the passage proceeds upon the assumption that 
each Evangelist omits something which another supplies — an 
assumption which cannot be denied as to three of the Evangel- 
ists, and which we think, from the consideration mentioned, is 
true of Luke also. 

Let us now consider for a moment the fact itself — the lan- 
guage of the penitent malefactor, and our Lord's gracious 
promise to him. 

It is probable both the malefactors were Jews, and both con- 
demned for a robbery which they had committed together. For 
they were cognizant of each other's crime. The word used by 
Matthew to denote it, is translated robber in John x. 1. Some 
suppose that the penitent malefactor had formerly been a dis- 
ciple, but had forsaken the Lord, as we are told many did in 
John vi. 66. But of this there is no evidence. It is plain, 
from the language of the impenitent malefactor, that he had no 
faith in the power of Jesus to save either himself or them: — in 
other words, he did not believe that Jesus was the Christ. Yet 
he appears to have entertained the same opinion of the extra- 
ordinary powers of the true Christ, or the expected king of the 
Jews, as the deriding priests and rulers did, for he repeats 

* Chancellor D'Aguesseau (see Ms Works, vol. xii. p. 383) makes the follow- 
ing reflection upon the passage: "To convert a robber on the cross and promise 
him paradise, was something greater than to deliver himself from the Jews. 
To purify in a moment a man covered with crimes, is [chef-d'oeuvre) the most 
excellent work of the Almighty power of God, and a complete proof of the 
divinity of Jesus Christ. This was the first decree which the Son of God pro- 
nounced from the tribunal of his cross. That wicked man asked only to be re- 
membered, and Jesus Christ promised him a share in the heavenly happiness he 
himself was about to enjoy. What mercy! What munificence! A precious 
motive for the confidence we ought to have in this Divine Saviour!" 



420 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

their words. It is evident also from the words of the other 
malefactor, that they both believed in one God. Notice his 
appeal, which is emphatic, "Dost thou not fear God?" as if he 
had said, "Art not thou afraid to join in the revilings of these 
wicked men — thou, who art justly hung up between heaven and 
earth for thy crimes?" The allusion perhaps is to the differ- 
ence between his condition and that of the other revilers. This, 
if nothing else, should prevent him from following their bad 
example, "Let them revile if they will, while death seems far 
off, but not thou, who hast but a short time to live." 

We should observe also the testimony this penitent malefac- 
tor bore to our Lord's innocence. "But this (person) hath 
done nothing amiss" — rather, out of place, which excludes the 
idea of every, even the least impropriety of conduct. Whether 
he knew the Lord Jesus before, we are not informed. Being a 
condemned criminal, he was probably confined in prison during 
the transaction before Pilate. Perhaps he had heard of his 
fame, his course of life. But this is not recorded. The true 
explanation appears to be, that having been taught by the 
Holy Spirit the mystery of our Lord's person, he was prompted 
to utter these words, as well as the prayer, by Divine influence. 
That he was a true believer, and taught of God, cannot be 
questioned. That his conversion took place suddenly, while on 
the cross, as has been suggested, after having joined in words 
of reproach, is also highly probable. His testimony, therefore, 
was that of a renewed man, who just before had been taught of 
God to regard the Lord Jesus, at whose side he hung, in his 
true character, and thus taught, he could no more revile him, 
or call him accursed, than any other man speaking by the Spirit 
of God ; nor could he call him Lord, as he immediately after- 
wards did, but by the Holy Ghost. 1 Cor. xii. 3. 

Thus explained, the testimony of this man, considering the 
time, place, and circumstances under which it was given, is 
very striking. It comes in, by way of supplement to the testi- 
mony of Pilate, and seems providentially appointed as an 
attestation of another nature, namely, that of a renewed man 
speaking from the cross, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. 
In this respect, it is a testimony of a much higher order than 
that of Pilate. 

Luke xxiii. 42, 43. "And he said unto Jesus, Lord, 
remember me when thou comest into [literally in] thy king- 
dom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To-day 
shalt thou be with me in Paradise." 

This prayer or petition evinces extraordinary faith. It was 
offered to an apparently helpless and dying man, and that, too, 
in opposition to the jeers and scoffs of the priests, rulers, and 



THE MALEFACTOR'S PRAYER. 421 

people. It evinces, also, a knowledge and belief in the future 
coming and kingdom of that very man whom he thus acknow- 
ledged as the Christ. He evidently did not expect that he 
would immediately appear in his kingdom. As for himself, he 
expected soon to die, but he believed in the power of Jesus to 
preserve his disembodied soul and spirit until he should come 
again. The severe sufferings of Jesus, and his apparent help- 
lessness, were no stumbling-block to his faith, which was much 
more in accordance with the Scriptures than that of the learned 
Jews, who expected that the Messiah would establish his king- 
dom in power and glory at his first coming. No doubt he had 
heard the revilings of the priests and rulers, and the multitudes 
calling upon him to prove his Messiahship by a miraculous 
descent from the cross ; but this malefactor knew that no such 
proof would be given. He knew that Jesus, as well as himself, 
would die upon the cross; but notwithstanding, he believed 
also that he would come again, and that, too, in the kingdom 
he claimed, and with a glory and power which would place his 
office and character beyond all denial or doubt. His language 
implies a belief in the doctrine of the resurrection, not only of 
Jesus, but of himself, which shows that he had been more fully 
instructed while hanging on his cross, in the mystery of 
redemption, than either Peter or John, John xx. 9, or the 
other disciples, Luke xxiv. 21, were at that time. Indeed, the 
more we consider this short petition, the more expansive and 
far-reaching its meaning appears. Evidently he regarded 
Jesus as an all-sufficient Saviour, though in the very jaws of 
death, and as having power to save and bless whom he chose. 
He regarded him also as a king, having a real kingdom; and 
although now about to die, yet to rise from the dead, and come 
again in his kingdom. He regarded even death as in the 
power of Jesus, and that though dying he would still live — 
that his death was but his way of departing from the earth for 
a time, and only preparatory to his return. Such thoughts and 
knowledge he could have derived only from the teachings of 
the Holy Spirit. Our Lord's answer to this petition, though 
brief and indirect, was full of consolation. But observe, our 
Lord does not answer him in the words of the petition, saying, 
" I will remember thee when I come in my kingdom," but he 
assures him of his present care and protection, "To-day shalt 
thou be with me in Paradise." Malefactor though he was, and 
justly suffering for his crimes, according to his own confession, 
yet the Saviour assures him that he — meaning his spiritual 
nature — should that very day pass with him' into a state of 
happiness, there to remain until the wished-for time of his 
Lord's coming in his kingdom. We may infer from this 



422 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

expression the consciousness of the soul in its state of separa- 
tion from the body. It is in the soul, in fact, the personality 
of the individual essentially resides. "This day shalt thou 11 — 
not thy body, but thy soul, depart (from this world) with me 
into Paradise." There is an intimation, too, as it strikes us, 
that some further knowledge or assurance should be imparted 
to him after passing into that state. The soul of this believer, 
at its exit from the body, was made perfect in holiness. It 
passed with full consciousness into the glory of Paradise, with 
full confidence in the power, the goodness, and the faithfulness 
of his Saviour to grant him all he wished. 

There has been much learned discussion upon the word 
"Paradise." From its use in other places of the New Testa- 
ment, it obviously denotes a place of blessedness, Rev. ii. 7 ; 
2 Cor. xii. 4, where the souls of believers look forward, with 
earnest expectation, to the coming and kingdom of our Lord 
Jesus Christ. This is the great, the blessed hope. Tit. ii. 13 ; 
Rev. vi. 9, 10. That it is a place for souls — and not for 
bodies — is evident from the fact that the body of this male- 
factor, as well as the Saviour's, remained during that day on 
earth. Perhaps, also, we may infer, from 2 Cor. xii. 4, and 
Rev. ii. 7, that to the same place believers may be gathered 
when raised and clothed upon with their spiritual bodies. These, 
however, are matters into which we should not too curiously 
inquire. The substance of the Saviour's gracious promise is 
easily understood. It contained, virtually, an assent to the 
petition of the penitent malefactor, and an assurance of happi- 
ness until his petition should be literally and punctually granted. 

John xix. 25. "Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his 
mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and 
Mary Magdalene." 

By the next verse we learn that John also was standing by, 
for he always describes himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved. 
But besides John and these four women, all his acquaintance, 
and the women that followed him from Galilee, as we learn from 
Luke xxiii. 49, stood afar off, beholding the things that were 
done. 

As to these persons whose love overcame their fears, it is to 
be observed that Mary the wife of Cleophas, was the mother 
of James the Less and of Joses, Matt, xxvii. 56; Mark xv. 40; 
and in Matt. x. 3, this James is called the son of Alpheus. 
Hence we may infer that Cleophas and Alpheus were the same 
person. James the Less was so called to distinguish him from 
James the apostle. Mary Magdalene is mentioned in Matt, 
xxviii. 1. There is some difficulty in distinguishing between 



Christ's care of his mother. 423 

the three Marys in some cases. Some suppose that Mary the 
sister of Lazarus formed one of this small group. 

We may judge by this circumstance of the terror of the occa- 
sion, when so few of our Lord's disciples ventured to come near 
the cross, and how great was the affection of those who over- 
came it. Of the apostles, none but John stood by the cross — 
and of his numerous disciples and followers, only four feeble 
women, and one of these his mother. Joseph, the husband of 
Mary, was not there, and from this circumstance, as well as 
from the fact that our Lord commended his mother to the care 
of his beloved John, it is reasonably inferred that he was dead. 

John xix. 26, 27. " When Jesus therefore saw his mother 
and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he said unto his 
mother, Woman, behold thy son. Then saith he to the dis- 
ciple, Behold thy mother; and from that hour that disciple 
took her unto his own home." 

We are unable to enter into the sublimity of this scene. 
While, as our great High Priest, he was offering his body as a 
sacrifice on the cross, our Lord was not unmindful of the fleet- 
ing relations of this life, and amid his sufferings takes care to 
provide for the comfort of his mother, who now felt the sorrows 
predicted more than thirty years before by Simeon. Luke ii. 35. 
This act of the Saviour towards Mary, may be regarded as per- 
formed in the twofold character of her son and her Lord. In 
the latter character it was not necessary for him, in order to 
secure her comfort, thus to commend her to any human care. 
His will, unexpressed by words, might have accomplished all 
he designed. He was able to inspire by his own Spirit the con- 
solation his words were intended to convey. But regarded in 
his human relations to her, our Lord exhibits in a very touch- 
ing manner the natural affections of his human nature, and his 
language justifies the belief that such affections will exist in 
the future state. Our Lord here constitutes by the highest 
authority in the universe — by the authority of the God of 
Nature — the relationship of mother and son, between Mary 
and the beloved disciple. Can we suppose that his view was 
bounded by the short space of human life, which in her case 
was already much more than half spent? Can we believe that 
this transaction will ever be forgotten by either, or that the tie 
thus constituted will ever cease to be recognized? Our Lord's 
own human relations to her were about to be for ever changed. 
Hitherto, as a man, he had borne to her the affection and 
reverence of a son; henceforth he was to sustain to her the 
relation of ruler and Lord, and he substitutes a son to her in 
his place. It was one of the acts necessary to accomplish all 
the things which had been appointed for him to do, verse 28. 



424 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

It strikes us as singular that John should almost always de- 
scribe himself as the disciple whom Jesus loved; may not this 
designation have respect to this last act of the Saviour of put- 
ting John into his own place, so to speak, as a son ? Certainly 
it was a striking token of affection, and a distinction conferred 
on no other of the disciples. It was owing to the grace of 
Christ, and not to any natural quality, that John on this occa- 
sion surpassed the other apostles in courage. He was too 
timid to enter the sepulchre alone, John xx. 5, yet it was neces- 
sary that he should be standing by the cross at that moment, 
in order that this new relation should be thus publicly con- 
stituted. 

But is there not in this transaction a deeper meaning ? Was 
not this thing done with a view to sunder, if we may so speak, 
his own human relations to her whom he had chosen to be the 
mother of his human nature? As if he had said, "Woman, 
henceforth behold thy son in him who stands at thy side. The 
work for which I came forth from the Father, and came into 
the world, and took from thee this body of flesh and blood, is 
now accomplished ; I am now about to return to my Father and 
take again the glory I had with him before the world was. 
The reasons therefore for which I became thy son have ceased. 
Henceforth regard me not as such, but only as thy Lord. Yet 
will I not leave thee childless ; behold thy son ! He shall sus- 
tain and fulfil to thee all the duties of that relation. My 
power and my grace shall enable him to fulfil all those duties 
which, as thy Lord and the Lord of all, I can no longer fulfil 
in the subject character of thy son." 

This act of the Saviour, according to this view of it, is not to 
be regarded as the expression of mere affection, but as an 
official act — a kind of correlate or counterpart to that act of 
sovereignty, by which Mary was at first chosen out of all the 
families of David, to sustain to him this most intimate of the 
human relations. Luke i. 28 — 31. As the one was a sovereign 
act of Divine power and grace by which he filiated to her the 
human person he intended to assume, so the other was an act 
of exfiliation, so to speak, or a sundering of that tie after the 
object of it was accomplished. At the same time, we may 
regard the substitution of John in his place in the character of 
a son, as prompted by that filial affection he had ever shown 
her, and as having respect chiefly to the wider, holier, and 
more enduring relations of the world of redemption under him- 
self as the second Adam, the Lord from heaven. See Matt, 
xii. 46 — 50. Thus interpreted, this transaction is irrecon- 
cilable with the worship which has since been rendered to 
Mary as the mother of God. 



THE MIRACULOUS DARKNESS. 425 

Mark xv. 33. ^| "And when the sixth hour was come 
Luke xxiii. 44. I there was a darkness over all the earth 

( until the ninth hour." 
Matt, xxvii. 45. J "And the sun was darkened." 
The hour here mentioned was the sixth Jewish hour, or 
12 o'clock at noon, according to our mode of reckoning. The 
ninth Jewish hour would be three o'clock p. M. The darkness 
here mentioned could not have been occasioned by an eclipse of 
the sun, because that can happen only at the new moon. The 
feast of the Passover was always celebrated at the full moon. 
This reason is quite conclusive. But there is another: an 
eclipse of the sun can never continue longer than two hours, 
nor be total longer than seven minutes and fifty-eight seconds. 
Some authors suppose the darkness was local, not extending 
even over the whole land of Palestine, and that it was produced 
by natural causes. Darkness, it is said, often, if not always, 
precedes an earthquake. It did at Naples in the year 79, when 
Vesuvius became a volcano. See Pliny's Letter '$, 20, book vi. 
If we receive this explanation we may yet recognize a direct 
intervention of the Divine power in producing the earthquake 
and its attending phenomena at that time. We prefer, however, 
the more usual explanation, which regards the darkness as ex- 
tending much beyond the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, and as 
being itself the direct product of Divine power, see Acts xvi. 
25, 26; and thus considered, the event would not be more a 
miracle, if it extended over the whole earth, than if we suppose 
it was confined to the land of Israel. As a miracle, it is to be 
classed with the quaking of the earth, the rending of the rocks, 
the opening of the graves, the rending of the veil of the temple. 
If we consider the sublimity of the time, and the stupendous 
mystery of the Son of God dying in a human body, the sym- 
pathy of physical nature with its own author would seem 
scarcely a miracle. Our Lord declared of himself that he was 
the light of the world, John viii. 12 ; xii. 46 ; and although the 
language is no doubt to be understood in a figurative or moral 
sense, yet it is true in the literal sense. For it was he who 
said, "Let there be light, and there was light." Of him it was 
also said, " He spake and it was done. He commanded and it 
stood fast." Ps. xxxiii. 9; civ. 2. The object of this miracle, 
as also of the others which followed, was to attest beyond a 
doubt the Divine mission of the Lord Jesus. During his public 
ministry he performed publicly all the works which it was pre- 
dicted the Messiah should perform. The force of these the 
nation resisted. He was even required to perform works of 
a different kind. "Show us a sign from heaven." Matt. xvi. 1. 
"Let him save himself if he be the Christ" — "Let him now 
54 



426 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

come down from the cross and we will believe." But while he 
refused to comply with all such demands, at his departure, he 
gave them, as he assured them he would, other proofs or signs 
of his Messiahship ; and now he was beginning to show them 
those other signs — signs from heaven, signs in the earth, signs 
in the temple, to be followed by the sign of his resurrection 
emblematically set forth in Jonah the prophet. These were 
miracles of power which should be considered together, because 
they all concur to one and the same end, viz., that of showing 
him to be the Son of God by demonstrations of power, Rom. 
i. 3, which were convincing even to heathens. Matt, xxvii. 54. 

It is remarkable, that during this period of darkness our 
Lord hung in silence on the cross. Before it commenced he 
had performed the last office of affection to his mother. We 
may easily suppose, too, that the railings of the priests, elders, 
rulers, soldiers, and passers-by had ceased. Fear and amaze- 
ment must have filled all minds. The busy preparations for 
the festival must have been suspended. Even the unfeeling 
soldiers who had parted his garments among them, must have 
been awed into solemnity and silence. If we may derive an 
inference from the word which the three Evangelists employ, 
the darkness was deep, like that of a night without stars. See 
Gen. i. 2, LXX. Luke says expressly the sun was darkened ; 
and the same power which intercepted, restrained, or diverted 
its light, could intercept, restrain, or divert the light of the 
stars. This was the period probably of our Lord's greatest 
suffering; it was the closing scene. 

Still it must be confessed we have no details of what occurred 
during this portentous period. The Evangelists give us merely 
the facts and their order. The period of darkness at length 
terminates — perhaps miraculously all at once. The light of day 
instantly takes the place of the darkness. The voice which is 
then first heard is the voice of Jesus, not feebly uttered, like 
that of a fainting, dying man, but with a strength which startles 
all the watchers of the cross, from far and near; for the Evan- 
gelists Matthew and Mark add: 

Matt, xxvii. 45. \ " And at tne nmtn nour [Matt. 

Mark xv. 34, 35. j about the ninth hour, that is, after 
the darkness ceased,] Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eloi, 
Eloi, lama sabacthani, which is, being interpreted, My God, 
my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" See Ps. xxii. l. : 



* 



* " The time has certainly been, when it was more difficult to understand 
and believe those passages of this Psalm (xxii.) which relate to the sufferings 
of Christ, than those which relate to the conversion of the nations, (verses 25 — 
31 ;) and the fulfilment of the most difficult (incredible) should be a strong con- 
firmation of our belief in the fulfilment of the rest. As certainly as the Son of 



THE ABANDONMENT OF THE FATHER. 427 

This is a new source of suffering. The desertion of his dis- 
ciples, and the railing and mockery of the Jews, the agony of 
the cross drew from him not a groan, not a word. These he 
bore in silence. But now he is abandoned by the Father. The 
word "forsake" in this place is emphatical. It conveys the 
idea of a forsaking in the time of great distress or calamity. If 
we inquire why he should be thus forsaken, we can only answer 
that it was an indispensable part of the plan of redemption. 
The supposition cannot be admitted that any unnecessary suf- 
fering — that is, any suffering not absolutely indispensable to 
preserve the honour of God's law, was inflicted by the Father 
on his beloved Son. Yet this was the only suffering that drew 
from him a word. But how was it possible that the Father 
should withdraw from him ? seeing our Lord himself had said, 
"I and my Father are one." It is vain for us to attempt to 
explain. The matter is too mysterious. It enters into the 
very nature of the Divine unity and personality. We can 
receive it only as a fact. But inasmuch as our Lord is called 
the second man — the second Adam, and was now repairing the 
ruin brought in by the first Adam, we may perhaps infer that 
the forsaking had respect in some way to his Adamic character, 
or the relation he was to sustain to the world of redemption. 

Mark xv. 35. \ " And some of them that stood by, 

Matt, xxvii. 47. J when they heard it, said, Behold he 
calleth Elias." 

It is plain from this that the bystanders misunderstood his 
words. The expression, as given by Mark, is in the Syriac or 
Aramaic language, which was understood by the people of the 
country. How then could they misunderstand him? They 
were influenced, perhaps, by their fear, that after all, it was 
possible he might be the Christ, and if so, Elias might yet 
appear for his deliverance. Whether all the bystanders misun- 
derstood his words, we are not informed. Some interpreters 
suppose this was an additional mockery, but there is nothing in 
the narrative to warrant such a conclusion. The fearful 'dark- 
ness which had just passed, and the powerful tones in which 
these words were uttered, would naturally not only repress all 
disposition to insult and mockery, but inspire fear. 

John xix. 28. "After this, Jesus knowing that all things 

God cried out upon the cross, " My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?" 
and as certainly as the Roman soldiers parted his garments among them and 
cast lots for his vesture, so certainly will all the ends of the earth remember, 
and turn to Jehovah, and all the kindreds of the nations reverently worship in 
his presence. See Ps. lxxxii. 8; lxvi. 1 — 4; lxxvii. 1—6; xcvi. 7—13; xcviii. 
1—9; lxxii. 17— 20."— Purves. 



428 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

were accomplished, that the Scripture might be fulfilled, saith, 
I thirst. Now there was set near by a vessel full of vinegar." 

.Thirst was the natural effect of the protracted sufferings of 
crucifixion, but it was not with a view to have the pain of it 
allayed, that our Lord now spoke, for upon receiving the vine- 
gar which was now offered him, he surrendered his Spirit. The 
inspired prophets were the first historians of his sufferings and 
death, and there was one other prophecy concerning him which 
must be fulfilled. It is contained in Ps. lxix. 21. The vinegar 
was probably sour wine, which had been provided for the re- 
freshment of the soldiers. According to the Harmony, this 
expression was uttered after the darkness was passed, though 
John mentions it next after the substitution of himself in the 
place of Jesus as the son of Mary. Nothing indeed had occur- 
red during the interval but the miraculous darkness, and his 
exclamation in the words of Ps. xxii. 1. John, who omits these 
circumstances, nevertheless postpones the utterance of these last 
words to the conclusion of the crucifixion. This is evident by 
the connection. 

Matt, xxvii. 48. \ "And straightway one of them ran 

John xix. 29. J and took a sponge, and filled it with vine- 
gar, and put it on a reed, and put it to his mouth and gave him 
to drink." 

The person who performed this office probably was some 
Jew, who took a deep interest in the scene. The soldiers, it 
appears, allowed him to saturate a sponge from their own 
vessel. The sponge was put upon a short reed or stick of hys- 
sop, that being the most convenient way of conveying moisture 
to his mouth. While this was doing, others who stood by 
said : 

Matt, xxvii. 49. "Let be. Let us see whether Elias will 
come and save him." 

This surmise of these bystanders was suggested probably by 
the Saviour's exclamation and complaint, uttered at the close 
of the darkness, which was only a few moments before, and was 
misunderstood. The suggestion shows a persistence in the erro- 
neous belief that Elias would yet appear for his deliverance, if 
he was really the Messiah of Israel. 

John xix. 30. "When Jesus, therefore, had received the 
vinegar, he said, 'It is finished.' " 

His meaning was, the work he was to accomplish in his hu- 
miliation by suffering was finished. He had gained the victory 
over the powers of darkness. All things which had been written 
concerning him by the prophets and in the Psalms had been 
fulfilled. The time of his exodus from humiliation to glory had 
come. Luke ix. 31. All, in fact, had been done which was 



THE WORK OF REDEMPTION FINISHED. 429 

necessary to repair the ruins of the fall. As if he had said, "It 
is finished. Now is the Son of Man glorified, and God is glo- 
rified in him." The residue was the assigned work of the Holy 
Spirit, and his work would follow as the reward of the work 
now finished. As by the sin of Adam all was lost, so by the 
work now finished, eternal deliverance from its effects was now 
made sure. Rom. v. 17 ; viii. 19, 22. These words of the Re- 
deemer were prompted by the perfect apprehension of the sub- 
lime object of his incarnation. They involve a fulness of meaning, 
which eternity alone can unfold. Thus regarded, these words 
marked ar> event, equal in magnitude to the work of creation, 
inasmuch as all things were accomplished which were necessary 
for the perfecting of the new creation. 

Matt, xxvii. 50. ^ "And when he had cried again with a 
Luke xxiii. 46. vloud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands 
John xix. 30. J [Trapadyao/iae] I commend my spirit, [or 
more exactly, into thy hands will I place my spirit as a deposit 
to be kept,] and having thus said, he bowed his head, and gave 
up the ghost," [or more literally, yielded his spirit (d<pyxe to 
Ttveufia^ emisit spiritum, Matt.,) expired (igejrveuae, expiravit, 
Luke, Mark,) gave up the spirit (jzapedcoxe to Tiveupa, tradidit 
spiritum, John.)*] 

Several things are worthy of notice in this place. He cried 
out with a loud voice, thus proving that he retained up to that 
moment, in full vigour, his vital powers as a man. In any other 
case, it would have been a sure ground for believing that the 
death of the sufferer could not immediately occur. When there- 
fore the instant afterwards, or rather at the same instant, he 
gave up his spirit, he proved that he did not die as other men, 
by the necessity or weakness of nature, but voluntarily; thus 
proving his own declaration, " I have power to lay down my 
life; no one taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself." 
John x. 18. It was to prove this that the fact under considera- 
tion was recorded. Luke adds a circumstance confirmatory of 
this view. Matthew says merely that he cried with a loud 
voice, without recording the words he uttered. Luke gives us 
the very words, "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit." 
We are not to consider this language in the nature of a prayer 
merely, but as designed chiefly to denote an act done. The 

* The word 7rttp!t8»<ro/u.ctt, employed by Luke, is used in a law sense to signify 
the making of a deposit. Metaphorically it may be predicated of other things 
which one man may deposit in the hands of another. We may predicate it in 
the figurative sense of honour, life, soul, spirit. The word dsroSva*-^ is com- 
monly used in the New Testament to signify (morior) to die. Rev. xiv. 13; 
Heb. vii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 22, 36; Rom. v. 7; John xii. 24; xi. 50, 51; Luke 
xx. 36 : Matt. xxii. 24. 



430 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

word commend does not so aptly express the true sense of the 
original,, as deposit, transfer, or put. We suppose that by an 
act of power, exerted simultaneously with the utterance of 
these words, the Redeemer actually separated his spirit from 
his body and placed it as a deposit in his Father's keeping, 
while his body was deposited in the sepulchre. This act of 
power being accompanied by words uttered with a great voice, 
proved that the Redeemer was, if we may so speak, active in 
dying, and that his passion, properly speaking, consisted in 
those physical and mental sufferings which preceded the act of 
dissolution, which was not, strictly speaking, suffered, but rather 
done or performed by him voluntarily, and as truly voluntarily 
as the act of incarnation. This view is essential to the sym- 
metry and perfection of our Lord's character as God-man, as 
well as of his priestly work. 

Some commentators regard these words as intended to show 
our Lord's perfect consciousness of his Divine Sonship, notwith- 
standing his sufferings; and no doubt such was the fact. But 
it seems the chief intention of these words was to denote the 
voluntary separation of his spirit from his body, by his own 
inherent power, which was to be performed by him as God-man 
in executing the plan of redemption. In other words, as it was 
a voluntary act on his part t» incarnate his Divine and spiritual 
nature in a human body ; so it was also a voluntary act on his 
part to separate his spiritual nature from the material frame in 
which he had temporarily lodged it, and deposit it in the keep- 
ing of his Father, while his body, during the appointed time, 
rested in the sepulchre. See 1 Pet. iii. 18, 19. 

We have now reached the end of the scene of the crucifixion. 
The event occurred at the ninth Jewish hour, or three o'clock 
in the afternoon — the time when the evening sacrifice was to be 
offered — the very time when the paschal lamb ought to have 
been slain. Up to this time our Lord retained his spirit, though 
it was in his power to have dismissed it the instant of the ele- 
vation of the cross. This retention of life was necessary that 
he might fulfil the type. The darkness, it is probable, had 
ceased only a few moments before. The return of light was 
necessary to exhibit clearly this last action of the Lord on the 
cross. If the darkness was such as we have supposed, or even 
considerable, as no doubt it was, it is not likely that the person 
who brought the vinegar could have performed that service 
with so much celerity. Besides, the return of light was neces- 
sary to exhibit those other miracles of power which occurred at 
the moment of the dissolution. It is evident from the succeed- 
ing narrative, that the centurion and others were eye-witnesses 
of some of the occurrences next related. 



SUPERNATUKAL EVENTS. 431 

, T e-i r "I "And behold the veil of the tem- 

Matt. xxvii. 51 — 53. I ■■ , . • , • • , , ■ . j\ 

t a^ rP* e was ren ^ m twain m the midst 

.LUKE XXIII. 4D. J fr()m the t()p tQ the bottom „ 

The temple consisted of three parts — 1st, the court, vesti- 
bules or porches, where the people assembled; 2d, the holy 
place, where the priests made their offerings; and 3d, the 
holiest place of all — Sanctum Sanctorum. The veil here spoken 
of (to zaTaneTaofia) was extended before the Holiest of All. 
It was made of thick rich tapestry, strongly wrought. 2 Chron. 
iii. 14. The Rabbins say it was four fingers thick. This may 
be an exaggeration. We do not know, but we have reason to 
believe that this veil was very thick and strong. There was 
another veil (xaXopLfia) suspended before the holy place — Sanc- 
tum — from which the one we are speaking of must be distin- 
guished. Comp. Exod. xxvi. 31 in the Hebrew with the LXX. 
See also Heb. ix. 3. At this very moment, it is highly proba- 
ble the priests were in the holy place, preparing to light the 
lamps and to offer incense. What must have been their amaze- 
ment at this sudden opening of the Holiest of All to their 
view! With what words did or could they announce the 
miracle to the people without! The event marked, though 
they did not know it, the end of the Levitical dispensation. 
Their own functions were now all ended. Christ, the true pass- 
over to whom the sacrifices pointed, was at that moment slain. 
The true High Priest had performed his sacrifice, and was 
about to enter into the upper sanctuary, of which the earthly 
temple was only a type. Still, if regarded simply as a fact, 
irrespective of its symbolical import, it was a most extraordi- 
nary miracle. The beam or fixture from which this thickly 
wrought veil was suspended, we are told was thirty feet above 
the floor, and consequently was far beyond the reach of any 
human hand. The rent was from the top (ano dvcodev) as 
Matthew and Mark take care expressly to say (ktoz xoltco) down- 
wards to the bottom, and as Luke says, through the midst. Such 
a miracle* must have greatly alarmed the priests and rulers of 
the Jews. Its coincidence with the death of Jesus was a nota- 
ble circumstance. They could not account for it by any natural 
cause. But besides this, there were public displays of the 
Divine power of a different nature, for " The earth did quake, 
and the rocks were rent, and the graves were opened, and 

* In this connection the reader may consult Josephus, Jewish War, book 
vi. chap. v. I 3, where that author relates, that during the siege of Jerusalem, 
the eastern gate of the inner court of the temple, which was of brass and very 
heavy, was seen to open of its own accord, by which "the men of learning 
understood that the security of their holy "house was dissolved of its own 
accord, and that the gate was opened for the advantage of their enemy." See 
the whole chapter. 



432 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

many bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of 
the graves after his resurrection, and went into the Holy City 
and appeared unto many." 

The quaking of the earth and the rending of the rocks must 
have been perceived by the whole population. These following 
immediately after the obscuration of the sun, and the wide- 
spread darkness, were signs from heaven of the Messiahship 
of Jesus, certainly as great as those they had just before 
demanded. Nevertheless, they made no salutary impression on 
the nation. This will appear the more wonderful, if we 
consider the time when these signs and wonders in heaven and 
earth occurred. It was on the day of the preparation for the 
great Sabbath, on which all the people presented themselves in 
the temple according to the command in Exod. xxiii. 17. This 
Sabbath commenced at three o'clock in the afternoon, so that 
it was ushered in, so to speak, by darkness, and its opening 
hour was signalized by the quaking earth and bursting rocks. 
All their plans and preparations must have been deranged by 
these extraordinary events, forced upon the crowded population 
of the city. 

Besides the rending of the rocks and the quaking of the 
earth, another supernatural event occurred — the opening of 
many graves or sepulchral monuments, and the resurrection 
of many bodies of the saints. Chrysostom, Cyril, and many 
of the early Christians suppose that at this time all the 
saints that had died before the Saviour, rose from the dead. 
Joseph Mede supposed that the number of these raised saints 
was not small. (Works, book III. chap, xii.) Others suppose 
that these raised persons were Christians, or professed disciples 
or followers of Jesus, who had not long been dead. But these 
are conjectures. As a fact we can easily receive it. Neither 
of the other Evangelists notice it at all, probably because they 
wrote later, and for the benefit of Gentile churches. Matthew, 
who wrote for the Jews, records merely the general fact, 
without entering into any particulars. He does not tell us 
where the graves were, whether near Jerusalem, or in other 
parts of Palestine, nor how many saints were raised, (see Dan. 
xii. 2,) nor in what age they died. Some suppose that they 
had not long been dead, because they would not have been 
recognized; but it is not said they were recognized, except as 
persons raised from the dead. We are, however, expressly told 
they appeared unto many, or more exactly, (kvayavcodrjoav) 
they were made manifestly known unto many who probably 
were alive when this Evangelist wrote, and could be appealed 
to as witnesses. See 1 Cor. xv. 6. 

Another question is suggested by the narrative: Did these 



RESURRECTION OF MANY BODIES OF THE SAINTS. 433 

saints arise simultaneously with the rending of the veil and the 
death of the Lord Jesus, or not till after his resurrection? 
This raises a question upon the meaning of the original text. 
Some translate it thus: "And many bodies of the saints arose, 
and having come out of their graves, entered into the holy city 
after his resurrection, and appeared unto many." The ob- 
jection to this interpretation is, that it seems to conflict with 
Col. i. 18 ; 1 Cor. xv. 20, in which Christ is represented as the 
first-fruits of them that slept. But to this it is answered that 
Paul's language in the places referred to has respect to the 
resurrection of the saints at the second coming of Christ. 
This seems to be the most natural interpretation of the Evan- 
gelist's words. The fact, however, is altogether mysterious, 
and the purpose of it is not explained. If we may indulge in 
a conjecture on this question, it was to show the power of 
Christ, even in the act of death. Thus regarded, it was an 
illustrious comment upon his words to Martha, John xi. 25, 
"I am the resurrection and the life," and a pledge of the 
power which he declared he would exercise over all his people 
at the last day. John vi. 39, 40, 44, 54. 

It is proper to remark in this connection, that the resur- 
rection of these saints coincided with the termination of the 
Levitical economy, and thus happened at the very time when 
all the saints of the Old Testament would have been raised 
from the dead, had the Jewish nation universally received the 
Lord Jesus as their Messiah, with the obedience of faith and 
the homage of their hearts. On this supposition, although 
there was a divine necessity that Christ should suffer, he would 
not have suffered by their hands, but rather, as we may con- 
jecture, by the hands of the Gentiles, who providentially held 
and exercised the power of government, perhaps to meet this 
contingency in human regard, and then at his resurrection he 
would have established his kingdom in outward glory over 
his own people, as a people already prepared for his kingdom. 
But the Jewish nation snared deeply, yea, deepest, in the sin 
of crucifying the Lord of glory. They were therefore rejected, 
and the kingdom was, so to speak, postponed. A new dispen- 
sation was opened for the gathering of another elect people, 
into the place of those first chosen, according to the represen- 
tation of the parable of the marriage. Matt. xxii. 1 — 10. Yet 
as a pledge of the faithfulness of God to the saints of the 
ancient covenant, and perhaps in fulfilment thereof, as well as 
to show the Divine power of Jesus, many — it may be a vast 
company — see Rev. xxii. 9; xix. 10 — of the ancient saints 
were perfected by the resurrection of their bodies, at the very 
time when all would have enjoyed the same advancement in 
55 



434 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

glory, had the nation been faithful to the covenant. Exod. 
x i x . i_5 ; Heb. xi. 35, 40. 

It is remarkable that the Evangelist gives no account of 
these saints, beyond the mere fact of their resurrection, their 
entrance into the holy city, and their appearance to many after 
the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. He is silent as to their 
local habitation in the mean time, and also as to the time and 
manner of their disappearance.* 

Mark xv. 39. ^ "And when the centurion which stood 
Matt, xxvii. 54. Vover against him, and they that were 
Luke xxiii. 47. J with him watching Jesus, saw the earth- 
quake and those things that were done, and that he so cried 
out and gave up the ghost, they feared greatly and glorified 
God, saying, ' Certainly this was a righteous man — truly this 
was the Son of God.' 

Here we have the means of forming some idea of the impres- 
siveness of this last scene, for which all minds had been pre- 
pared by the darkness and silence of the preceding three hours. 
The whole of what is here narrated probably occurred rapidly 
within the compass of a very short time. Let us attempt to 
group the occurrences. First, the darkness suddenly ceases 
and the sun appears. Immediately the Saviour breaks the 
stillness with the exclamation, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani!" 
A moment after he utters in a lower tone, "I thrist." A 
watcher runs and quickly returns with a moistened sponge to 
relieve it. Having received it he pronounces, "It is finished," 
and immediately bows his head and surrenders his spirit, but 
marks the act by words uttered with the full power of the 
human voice. Instantly the veil of the temple is parted — 
the earth quakes — the rocks are rent asunder — the graves 
open — dead bodies arise. All these things were not seen 

* Do we inquire whether these risen saints appeared in houses or elsewhere? 
Whether by day or by night ? Whether their appearance was momentary or 
continued? Whether they conversed with those to whom they appeared? 
Whether they spoke of the realms of the dead, or the state of the soul after 
death, or of the entrance of Christ into these realms, or of his power? On 
these and all such topics the Evangelist is silent, and his silence is a strong 
internal proof of his inspiration. On precisely such themes an impostor would 
be most likely to enlarge. A question was raised and much discussed by the 
early commentators, whether these saints were raised to immortal life, or died 
again. (See Augustine Epist. 99, ad Evodium. Euthymius. Theophylact. 
Origen. Beda.) Eusebius (Hist, book iv. chap. 3), and Jerome, in his Cata- 
logue of Ecclesiastical Writers, mention Quadratus, an early martyr, who 
declared that he had seen many persons who had been raised from the dead — 
plurimos a se visos qui sub Domino variis in Judaea oppressi calamitatibus 
sanati fuerunt et quia mortuis resurrezerant — but the writings of this martyr are 
lost; yet if we had them, it is not at all probable they would cast the least 
light on a subject which the inspired Evangelist has designedly left so much in 
obscurity. 



THE TESTIMONY OF THE CENTURION. 435 

indeed by the centurion and the watchers of the cross. What 
impressed them was the manner in which Jesus died, and the 
instantaneous occurrence of the earthquake. Though the cen- 
turion was a heathen, yet there was a meaning in these things 
which convinced him that Jesus was not only an innocent man, 
but a man greatly favoured of God. Some suppose the cen- 
turion was a proselyte to the Jewish religion, but this is not 
said of him in the Scriptures. The supposition is founded 
upon the words ascribed to him by Matthew. But it is to be 
remembered that Matthew wrote his gospel for Jews, and 
adopted their idiomatic forms of expression. Thus regarded, 
the words "Son of God," or "a son of God," merely denote a 
person who is an especial object of 'Divine favour. Luke, who 
wrote for the Gentile church, expresses the sentiment of the 
centurion in other though equivalent language: "Certainly 
this was a righteous man," or "Certainly this man was right- 
eous." It is remarkable that all the recorded testimonies to 
our Lord's excellence of character on this eventful day, except 
that of the crucified malefactor and Judas his betrayer, were 
uttered" by heathens. Pilate, the wife of Pilate, and the cen- 
turion, and those who were appointed to act with him, all 
pronounced him "righteous," while the priests and rulers still 
persisted, in spite of these wonderful things, that he was a 
deceiver. Yet, so impressive were these occurrences, that they 
deeply affected the minds of others ; for Luke adds : 

Luke xxiii. 48. "And all the people that came together to 
that sight, beholding the things that were done, smote their 
breasts and returned." 

The people spoken of in this verse were not his disciples or 
particular acquaintances; for these stood afar off, probably be- 
cause they were afraid to go near ; nor were they priests or 
rulers. These probably were dispersed by the lengthened dark- 
ness, and the business of preparation for the Sabbath, which 
was drawing near, called them away. The phraseology of the 
Evangelist conveys the idea that these persons had been attract- 
ed to the place by curiosity ; but upon witnessing these prodigious 
displays of the Divine power which immediately followed the 
last loud exclamation of the Saviour, they smote their breasts 
with fear and amazement. Perhaps they had witnessed cruci- 
fixions before, as they were common under the Romans, yet 
never one like this. The spectacle was too mournful, too 
solemn, too awful for them to endure, and they turned away 
from it and departed to their homes. 

Whether these persons had taken any part in the tumultuous 
proceedings before Pilate, we are not informed. If they had, a 
great change had come over them. The only remaining circum- 



436 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

stance to be noticed relates to the acquaintance of Jesus, and 
the women that followed him from Galilee. Luke xxiii. 49; 
Mark xv. 40, 41; Matt, xxvii. 55, 56. 

It is not easy to describe or even conceive the feelings of 
those attached friends. Their fear and, perhaps, the fact that 
many of them were Galileans, kept them at some distance from 
the cross, although within full view of it, while their love fixed 
them to the spot where they stood, though the sight was too 
dreadful to be endured by those who loved him less. It proves 
to us that love is a more powerful principle than fear or shame. 
It is to be observed also that the only persons named or de- 
scribed as forming a part of this group of the spectators were 
females. This testimony is most honourable to the female cha- 
racter; and although woman was first in the transgression, and 
is now, in her earthly relations, subject to the other sex, 1 Tim. 
ii. 11 — 13, yet (may we not reasonably infer ?) such will not be 
her condition in the world of redemption. 

John xix. 31 — 37. " The Jews, therefore, because it was the 
preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross 
on the Sabbath day, (for that Sabbath day was an high day,) 
besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they 
might be taken away. Then came the soldiers, and brake the 
legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him. 
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, 
they brake not his legs : but one of the soldiers with a spear 
pierced his side, and forthwith came thereout blood and water. 
And he that saw it, bare record, and his record is true : and he 
knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe. For these 
things were done, that the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone 
of him shall not be broken. And again another Scripture saith, 
They shall look on him whom they pierced." 

The parasceve, or preparation, was so called from the circum- 
stance, that all things necessary for food were prepared at that 
time for the Sabbath, because it was not lawful to light a fire 
or to cook on the Sabbath day. The particular part of the day 
assigned for the preparation, some have supposed began at the 
ninth hour, and continued until sunset. The Sabbath that was 
approaching was a very solemn festival, as it occurred on the 
15th of the month Nisan, and was the first day of the Passover 
festival. John xix. 31. 

By the Jewish law, it was not lawful that the bodies of the 
crucified should remain suspended on the cross during the Sab- 
bath, lest the land should be defiled. Deut. xxi. 22, 23. Jose- 
phus informs us, book iv. last chapter, in his history of the 
Jewish War, that the Jews of his time observed this law very 
strictly. It was the fear that this law might be violated through 



ACTS OF THE SOLDIERS. 437 

their means, which induced them to go to Pilate, and desire him 
to hasten the death of the sufferers, by ordering the executioners 
to break their legs. This, no doubt, was their motive, not to 
add to their sufferings. We are told, that this was commonly 
done by striking the sufferer with an iron mallet just above the 
ancle. We may conjecture from the circumstances of the nar- 
rative, that this request was made shortly after the darkness 
was passed, and before it was generally known that the Lord 
Jesus was dead. It appears also, that until the sufferers were 
actually dead, their bodies could not be removed from the 
cross. But it was not the custom of the Romans to allow 
the bodies of crucified persons to be buried; yet this custom 
was departed from in Judea when a festival was near; for in 
such a case, the bodies of the deceased were delivered to their 
friends for burial. 

It appears that Pilate granted this request ; for soldiers came 
and broke the legs of the first, and of the other malefactor, 
and would have broken the legs of our Lord Jesus, had he been 
alive. Probably these were not the soldiers who were sta- 
tioned at the cross, but others, Matt, xxvii. 54; Luke xxiii. 47, 
sent from the Prsetorium expressly for the purpose. "Then 
came soldiers," &c. John xix. 32. Here we observe again an 
overruling Providence. It was not a feeling of awe, tender- 
ness, or humanity, or a regard to decency, which restrained the 
hands of the soldiers ; and had they, in passing from one cross 
to another, broken the legs of Jesus, they would have incurred 
no censure from Pilate. Nor does it appear that they were 
influenced by any such considerations ; for one of them plunged 
his spear into his side, knowing at the same time that he was 
dead. No doubt he was influenced by a spirit of wantonness, 
or at least by thoughtlessness, for he was not directed to do so. 
Yet here, also, we see the hand of Divine Providence; for 
while it had been prophesied of him, that all his bones should 
be preserved from violence, Ps. xxxiv. 20, which was necessary 
to fulfil the typical relation between him, as the true passover, 
and the paschal lamb, Exod. xii. 46 ; Numb. ix. 12, it had also 
been prophesied of him by Zechariah, xii. 10, " They shall look 
upon him whom they have pierced;" — a prophecy which began 
to be fulfilled at that time, but will be more eminently fulfilled 
when God shall turn again to that people, and pour out his 
Spirit upon them. 

But there was another reason for this act of the soldier. It 
was necessary that the death of Jesus should be established 
beyond the possibility of doubt. Hence this soldier was 
allowed to pierce him in a part where a wound is always 
mortal; so that if he had not been already quite dead, this 



438 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

wound would have extinguished the last remains of life ; and 
for this reason John has recorded the fact, perhaps with a view 
especially to refute some heretical opinions which had already 
arisen at the time he wrote. 

We observe again how the act of one is ascribed to all. It 
was the hand of the Roman soldier that actually drove the 
spear into the Saviour's side, yet the whole people are said to 
have pierced him, Rev. i. 7 ; Zech. xii. 10, and thus Peter, 
speaking by inspiration, charges the whole upon them. "Him 
.... ye have taken, and by the hands of lawless, ungodly 
men, have crucified and slain." Acts ii. 23. Pilate who con- 
demned him, the soldiers who led him to Calvary and nailed 
him to the cross, and the Roman who wantonly pierced him 
after he was dead, are, in the Divine regard, mere instruments 
in the hands of the priests and rulers of Israel. 

THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 

John xix. 38. ^ "After this, when the evening was 

Mark xv. 42, 43. I come, because it was the preparation, 

Matt, xxvii. 57. [that is, the day before the Sabbath, 

Luke xxiii. 51. J there came a rich man of Arimathea, a 

city of the Jews, named Joseph, an honourable counsellor, and 

he was a good man and a just, who also himself waited for the 

kingdom of God, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly, for 

fear of the Jews — the same had not consented to the counsel 

and deed of them; — This man went in boldly unto Pilate, 

and besought Pilate that he might take away the body of 

Jesus." 

A good character is given of this Joseph, mixed, however, 
as the best human characters are, with some infirmities. He 
was a rich man, of high rank, and probably a member of the 
Sanhedrim or great Jewish council, for it is said of him 
that he did not consent to their counsel and deed respecting 
the Lord Jesus. He had been, and was, in fact, a secret 
disciple of Jesus, and one of those who expected and earnestly 
hoped for the kingdom of God. But an emergency had now 
arisen, which overcame his fears both of the Jews and of Pilate. 
His master was now dead, and although he suffered as a male- 
factor, Joseph resolved to do honour to his remains. He 
therefore entered boldly into Pilate's presence (probably at the 
Prsetorium) and asked from the governor the favour of re- 
moving the body of the Lord from the cross, contrary to the 
Roman custom, which did not permit, as a general thing, that 
the bodies of crucified persons should be buried, but required 



Christ's body delivered to Joseph of arimathea. 439 

that they should remain suspended until their flesh putrefied, 
or was devoured by ravenous birds or wild beasts. 

Arimathea, it is supposed, was either the Rama mentioned in 
Matt. ii. 18, or more probably the city mentioned in 1 Sam. 
i. 1, in the territory of the tribe of Ephraim. It once belonged 
to the Samaritans, but was afterwards annexed to Judea, so 
that it was properly called a city of the Jews. 1 Maccab. xi. 
28—34; Luke xxiii. 51. 

Mark xv. 44, 45. "} "And Pilate marvelled if he were 

Matt, xxvii. 58. > already dead, and calling to him the 

John xix. 38. J centurion, he asked him if he had been 

any while dead, and when he knew it of the centurion, Pilate 

gave him leave, and commanded the body to be delivered to 

Joseph." 

This request was probably made very soon after the Saviour 
expired, and Joseph, we may believe, being near the cross to 
witness the event, hastened to Pilate as soon as it occurred. 
His affection would prompt him to abridge, as much as possible, 
the ignominious exposure of his beloved Master. The Jews 
had requested of Pilate to order that the legs of all the 
sufferers should be broken while they supposed that all were 
alive, and Joseph, it is not improbable, made his request before 
the soldiers could have had time to execute the command of 
Pilate to hasten their death. For Pilate was evidently sur- 
prised by the request of Joseph. He could not believe that 
Jesus was so soon dead, nor did he believe it on Joseph's word. 
We are told that persons who were crucified in the full vigour 
of life and health, often hung suffering several days before 
they expired. Hence it seemed incredible to him that a man 
like our Lord, in the vigour of life, without blemish, Levit. 
xxi. 16 — 23, and in perfect soundness, who had endured 
scourging with such amazing fortitude, should have died so 
quickly, contrary to his observation and experience. Accor- 
dingly, he sent for the centurion who superintended the exe- 
cution, and who probably remained at the place; for it was his 
duty to remain there until the death of the sufferers, and 
inquired of him whether the fact was so, before he assented to 
the request of Joseph. It is apparent from the language of 
Mark, that Pilate did not confine his inquiry to the fact 
whether he was dead or not. It seemed so extraordinary that 
he wished to know how long he had been dead — whether he 
had been dead any considerable time. It may be, also, that 
the earthquake had excited his fears still more than the 
saying of the Jews, as to his superhuman character; and he 
may have been desirous to know whether the death of Jesus 
happened at the same time with the earthquake. But these 



440 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

are mere surmises, although there can be no doubt that 
Pilate must have been deeply impressed with the occurrences 
of that day. 

Having ascertained the fact, Pilate freely granted the re- 
quest, and gave direction to the centurion to remove the body 
and deliver it to Joseph. Mark's words (edoiprjaaro to aw/ia 
donavit) may be rendered, he made a present of the body to 
Joseph, alluding probably to the common practice of Roman 
governors, and, perhaps, to that of Pilate, on other occasions, 
of demanding money for the privilege of removing a dead body 
from the cross for burial. This is the more probable as Pilate 
condemned him so unwillingly and against his own judgment. 
It is not expressly said that the command to remove the body 
was given to the centurion, yet as Pilate had acted through him, 
and had just sent for him, it is not improbable that this 
direction also was given to him. Matt, xxvii. 58. Nor do the 
Evangelists inform us expressly who removed the body from 
the cross. Luke xxiii. 53, seems to ascribe the act to Joseph, 
though the centurion, acting by the command of Pilate, may 
have taken part in it. We have seen how deeply this officer 
was impressed by the scene of the crucifixion, and we can 
imagine that his feelings were such as to prevent all rudeness 
and violence in the performance of that duty. It was per- 
formed probably while the two malefactors were still living, 
and if so, in the presence at least of the centurion and 
soldiers. 

Here we may observe again how Divine Providence accom- 
plishes its plans. It had been prophesied of the Messiah, Isa. 
liii. 9, that he should be with the rich after his death, and 
Joseph of Arimathea was emboldened by God's Spirit, contrary 
to his former conduct, to appear before Pilate with his unusual 
request. It was necessary, too, that the dead body of the 
Lord should be cared for, so as to prevent further violence to 
the frame, and the centurion had been prepared, by the solemn 
scene he had witnessed, for that purpose. 

Matt, xxvii. 59. 1 "And when Joseph had taken the 

John xix. 39, 40. j body, there came also Nicodemus, which 
at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of 
myrrh and aloes, about a hundred pound weight." 

It does not appear that there was or had been before this 
any concert between these two persons. Had there been, it is 
presumable that both would have gone to Pilate together and 
joined in the request. It appears too, that the body, after it 
had been taken from the cross, was delivered to Joseph, and 
not till then did Nicodemus appear. This man had early made 
the acquaintance of the Lord Jesus, even before he entered 



THE BURIAL OF JESUS. 441 

upon his public ministry, John iii. 1, and was from the begin- 
ning deeply impressed with his miracles. He was a Pharisee 
and a ruler — or as our Lord addressed him, a master of Israel, 
John iii. 10 ; and, if we may judge from the quantity of the 
precious mixture he brought, was also rich. The aloes, we are 
told, was a production of India and Arabia, and its odour very 
pleasant. It was pulverized and mixed with the myrrh, which 
was a fluid. It had been prepared to anoint the body of the 
Lord, so as to repel the attacks of worms, and to preserve it 
against decomposition. Three or four pounds of the mixture 
would have sufficed for this purpose, but Nicodemus, in the 
fulness of his affection, had prepared about a hundred pounds' 
weight. It is evident these disciples did not know that their 
beloved Lord was so soon to rise from the dead. It was not 
till after the event they understood these words of the Psalmist, 
Ps. xvi. 10, "Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, (Sheol,) 
neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption." Acts 
ii. 27.* Yet was it a labour of love, which, like Mary's, John 
xii. 3 — 7, their Lord would not suffer to pass without its reward. 
Matt. x. 42. 

John xix. 40. 1 " Then they took the body of Jesus, 

Matt, xxv.il 59. j and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth 
with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury." 

This allusion of the Evangelist John to the Jewish manner of 
burial shows that he wrote this Gospel for the use of persons 
not acquainted with Jewish customs. But why, we may in- 
quire, did not these rich men provide some more precious mate- 
rial than linen to wrap the body in ; especially as Nicodemus 
had made so costly a provision of spices? We are told, and 
this is a sufficient answer to the question, that it was not lawful 
to use a more precious or costly material for the purpose of 
burial than linen. They might not use silk or gorgeous gar- 
ments for the burial even of a prince. 

As the Sabbath was near, it is supposed that this whole pro- 
ceeding was conducted in haste, and that the body was removed 
to the sepulchre immediately after it was taken from the cross, 
and after that was wrapped in the linen with the spices. Luke 
informs us, xxiii. 55, 56, that the women who followed him from 
Galilee beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was laid, and 
after that they returned and prepared spices and ointments for 
the same purpose, intending to use them after the Sabbath was 
over. The Jewish method of burial was a kind of embalming, 

* The Hebrew word Sheol signifies grave. Gen. xlii. 38 ; 1 Kings ii. 6 — 9. 
The words my soul in the Hebrew idiom signify me or my person; so that the 
sense of the Psalmist is, " Thou wilt not abandon me to the grave," i. e. to the 
power of the grave, "that it may detain me as its own." See By timer's Lyra. 

b6 



442 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

and similar to the Egyptian method. The linen was made into 
strips, or bandages, then covered with myrrh and spices, and 
wound round the body after it had been washed. Herodotus, 
book ii. ; Tacitus Hist, book v. chap. 5. After involving the 
whole body, without eviscerating it, in such bandages, it was 
the custom of the Jews to bind the head about with a napkin, 
as we learn from the account John gives of the resurrection of 
Lazarus. John xi. 44. 

In this manner these two rich disciples performed this office 
of affection to the deceased body of their Master. The whole, 
it is probable, was completed before they departed from the 
sepulchre; but the pious women who remained only till they 
saw the body conveyed into the sepulchre, made preparation to 
perform the same office, not knowing what Joseph and Nicode- 
mus did after they departed. 

John xix. 41, 42. "Now in the place where he was cruci- 
fied there was a garden, and in the garden a new sepulchre, 
which he [Joseph — Matt, xxvii. 60] had hewn out of a rock, 
wherein was never a man yet laid. There laid they Jesus 
therefore, because of the Jews' preparation day [Luke xxiii. 54,] 
for that day was the preparation, and the Sabbath drew on, 
[John xix. 42,] for the sepulchre was nigh at hand." 

The motive ascribed to these attached disciples for selecting 
this place of burial was its proximity to the place of crucifixion. 
The Sabbath, which would have been violated by the interment 
of a dead body, was so near, that no other place, perhaps, at 
that late hour, could have been provided. It seemed suitable, 
also, for the purpose. It was new, and had never been used as 
a place of interment. It belonged to Joseph, and he had the 
right to appropriate it to that use ; and although designed pro- 
bably for himself and his family, he could readily yield it up as 
a tribute of his affection. Observe, too, that it was a place of 
security; having been hewn from a rock, so that the body could 
not have been abstracted from its resting-place, except through 
the entrance or door. As no dead body had been deposited 
there before, there could be no ground to ascribe the resurrec- 
tion to any other person ; nor could the resurrection of the body 
of the Lord Jesus be ascribed to its contact with the bones of a 
prophet, of which the Old Testament furnishes an example, 
2 Kings xiii. 21, in the case of Elisha. Thus while we may 
allow scope for the exercise of human motives, there was an 
overruling Providence in the selection of this place, in order to 
provide the strongest evidence possible of the fact of the resur- 
rection of the identical body of the Lord Jesus. This will 
further appear by the precaution these disciples were influenced 



THE BUEIAL OF JESUS. 443 

to take to secure the entrance into the sepulchre, for after de- 
positing the body they — 

Matt, xxvii. 60. " Rolled a great stone against the door 
of the sepulchre, and then departed." 

But this was not sufficient to answer the Providential design; 
for a stone, that two men could roll to the door, two other men 
might remove from its place. We shall therefore see presently 
that the enemies of the Lord were moved to take the matter 
into their own hands, and not only to seal the stone, but station 
a military guard to prevent its removal. 

Matt, xxvii. 61. ^j "And there was Mary Magdalene, 

Mark xv. 47. > and the other Mary, [called by Mark, 

Luke xxiii. 55, 56. J Mary the mother of Joses,] sitting over 
against the sepulchre, and beheld where he was laid. And the 
women which came with him from Galilee, beheld the sepulchre 
and how the body was laid; and they returned and prepared 
spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day, according to 
the commandment." 

There does not appear to have been any concert between 
these women and Joseph and Nicodemus. They, perhaps, were 
watching from a little distance, not venturing at first to come 
near. As Joseph and Nicodemus we're secret disciples, it is 
quite possible the women had no acquaintance with them, and 
even did not know their purpose. It is not probable they re- 
mained as long as the two disciples. For those spoken of by 
Luke returned in time to prepare spices and ointments before 
sunset, when the Sabbath commenced, which perhaps they would 
not have done had they known of the large provision Nicodemus 
bad made, and the use he had made of it. Neither did 
Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James and Salome 
know what Nicodemus had done ; for they also bought sweet 
spices and came to the sepulchre after the Sabbath to anoint 
the body. Mark xvi. 1. Observe, too, how punctually these 
females observed the law of the Sabbath. Great as their affec- 
tion was for Jesus, and Divine as they believed him to be, they 
did not feel themselves free to perform this act of affection as 
an act of necessity or mercy on the Sabbath. How painfully 
does the irreverence of many professed Christians contrast with 
the conduct of these Jewish disciples ! 

Matt, xxvii. 62 — 66. " Now the next day that followed the 
day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came 
together unto Pilate, saying, Sir, we remember that that de- 
ceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise 
again. Command, therefore, that the sepulchre be made sure 
until the third day, lest his disciples come by night and steal him 
away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead : so 



444 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

the last error shall' be worse than the first. Pilate said unto 
them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as you 
can. So they went and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the 
stone, and setting a watch."* 

These circumstances are recorded only by Matthew. His 
phraseology to denote the time of the occurrence is peculiar. 
He does not say, On the Sabbath ; although that was the day 
which followed the preparation. Various conjectures have been 
made to account for the periphrasis; the most probable of 
which is that the Evangelist chose to tax the chief priests and 
Pharisees obliquely or inferentially, rather than directly and 
bluntly, with a breach of the Sabbath, by the zeal they mani- 
fested in this matter. It is not probable that any considerable 
body of persons waited upon Pilate on the Sabbath. Perhaps 
their call was rather informal than official. Their motive may 
have been to induce Pilate to act in the matter rather than 
leave it to them, as they could not attend to it without violating 
their Sabbath, by setting a watch and making the sepulchre 
sure. However this may be, the fact shows a breach of their 
own law of the Sabbath, f which they would have censured in 
any other person. But their bitter enmity to the Lord Jesus, 
and their purpose to omit no means of extirpating his influence, 
made them disregard all other considerations — whether divine 
or human. If they expected, however, that Pilate would be 
condescending enough to relieve them of the care of securing 
the sepulchre, they were disappointed. His reply in effect was, 
"Why do you trouble me with this business? You have a mili- 
tary force at your command. Do it yourselves in your own 

* Msrst rpa; n/uifisLz is the same as iv t» rpirn ttjutpz or Sid rpim Hjutpw. It means 
"within three days," or "on the third day." This sense the language yields, 
and the connection requires. Msrstis used in this sense in Biblical Greek, 
Deut. xxxi. 10. So likewise in classical Greek, /u.tQ' n/uapnv (interdiu) in the day- 
time — [a4? yijuipag hrrei, "within seven days." In this sense the Jewish rulers 
understood the phrase, because they wished a watch placed immediately, and to 
be continued "a»s r»c <rptme t/uip*.e" until the third day. They did not under- 
stand the saying of Jesus to mean, that after three full days (that is, on the 
fourth day) he would rise, but that he would arise on the third day. The pre- 
diction, therefore, would be fulfilled if he rose at the first moment of the third 
day from his death. 

f It should be observed, however, that the 66th verse may mean no more 
than that the priests and Pharisees caused these things to be done by others ; 
not that they did them with their own hands. If so, then, according to the 
casuistry of the Rabbins, it was no breach of the Sabbath — for Moses forbade 
only bodily labour, such as gathering wood, lighting fires, &c. They might go, 
therefore, lawfully to Pilate and ask him to give them a watch, and to seal the 
sepulchre; and having received authority to do so, even cause these acts to be 
done on the Sabbath by others, without violating the fourth commandment as 
they explained it. Yet they did not so expound the law when our Lord cured 
the infirm man at the pool of Bethesda. John v. 11, 13, (see ix. 6, 7, 14, 16;) 
Luke vi. 7, 11. 



THE SEPULCHRE MADE SURE. 445 

way. As for any scruples of conscience upon the obligation of 
your Sabbath, you seem to have overcome them by calling on 
me for such a purpose. You can attend to this matter as con- 
sistently with your law as you can come to the Prsetorium on 
your Sabbath to transact secular business with me." Perhaps 
Pilate remembered how, the day before, they had refused to 
come into the Praetorium lest they should be defiled. 

It appears also by this passage, not only .that our Lord had 
predicted his resurrection after three days, but that the priests 
were fully aware of the fact. Yet it appears by other places, 
that even his disciples did not really expect that he would rise 
from the dead, and were, in fact, as skeptical in this matter as 
the priests. Indeed, the preparation of the myrrh, aloes, spices, 
and ointments, of the linen, and the manner in which the body 
was wrapped up, all indicate the full persuasion of a long con- 
tinuance in the grave. "They believed not," as Lightfoot re- 
marks, "that he should die, till he was dead; nor believed that 
he should rise again, no, not when he was already arisen." 

Matt, xxvii. 6'd. "So they went and made the sepulchre 
sure, sealing the stone and setting a watch." 

This precaution was of a nature not to be postponed, accord- 
ing to their view of the case. Of course, they did these things 
on their Sabbath, but whether after sunset on Friday, or on the 
morning of Saturday, according to our mode of reckoning, we 
are not expressly informed. The watch they set was taken 
from the soldiers attached to the temple who were subject to 
the orders of the priests. Some have supposed that the stone 
was sealed with Pilate's signet; but this is not recorded. Yet 
whether so or not, the end of Divine Providence was secured, 
by providing such means to secure the body of our blessed 
Lord within the sepulchre, as could not be eluded or overcome. 
Thus the evidence of his resurrection by Divine power was 
placed beyond all question or doubt, and an argument was 
put into the mouth of his followers which could not be gain- 
said or resisted. 

It was probably the intention of the priests and rulers to 
remove the body from the sepulchre after three days, and pub- 
licly expose it to the gaze of the people, so that by the antici- 
pated failure of this prediction, his credit with them would be 
destroyed. Undoubtedly, if the prediction had been falsified 
by the event, they would have done so. Their difficulty in that 
case would have been to prove the prediction, for he made it 
'plainly to none but to his disciples in private, and only obscurely 
to others in public, to the people. Mark viii. 31 ;' xiv. 58 ; Matt, 
xvi, 21; John ii. 19; Matt. xii. 40. How the priests came 
to understand his public allusions so well, we can only con- 



446 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

jecture. Perhaps their intercourse with the traitor Judas was 
the source of their knowledge. However this may be, the 
result was, our Lord's body was kept safely in the sepulchre of 
Joseph under the threefold guard of the stone, the seal, and the 
watch, 



CHAPTER XII. 

THE RESURRECTION. 

A harmony of the chapters to be considered. — The whole doctrine of the glorified 
Church inseparably connected with the doctrine of our Lord's resurrection. — 
The Marys at the sepulchre. — Intercourse between angels, the Saviour, and 
his disciples. — Ministry of angels in the present dispensation. — Spiritual 
natures. — Mary's recognition of her Lord through his power over her mind 
and spirit. — Christ's prohibition of Mary's touch explained. — Jesus in his 
future interviews with his disciples no longer to be considered as an inhabi- 
tant of the earth. — Christ's risen body not confined to the earth during the 
forty days. — Inadequate conception of the attributes with which our Lord 
invested his risen human body. — The Sanhedrim convened. — Malicious inge- 
nuity of its members. — The belief of the report of the theft of the body of Jesus 
confined to the Jews. — Pains taken by them to circulate and perpetuate it. 

We interrupt our Notes for the purpose of introducing a short 
harmony of the chapters upon which we are now to enter. 
There is considerable difficulty in determining with certainty 
the order in which the various events recorded occurred. The 
difficulty arises chiefly from the fact that each Evangelist omits to 
state the minor circumstances of the events which he narrates, 
and especially to record with particularity the times at which 
they occurred. It is not difficult, however, to show that the 
Evangelists do not contradict each other. Each account, we 
hold and firmly believe, is literally and exactly true, and all of 
them perfectly consistent with each other, as the following 
outline and notes, we trust, will show : 

1. Matt, xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 1; Luke xxiv. 1. — Soon 
after the end of the Sabbath, but the hour of the night pre- 
cisely we cannot tell, the women whom the Evangelists men- 
tioned in the preceding chapters, and some others with them, 
made themselves ready to go early in the morning to the sepul- 
chre, taking with them the spices they had prepared to anoint 
the Lord's body. Whether they all intended to set forth from 
the same place, or from different places, and from what places, 
we are not. informed. It is probable they went from different 
places, situated at unequal distances, and did not all set forth 



HARMONY OF CHAPTERS. 447 

at precisely the same moment of time, or go with exactly the 
same speed. 

2. Matt, xxviii. 2 — 4.— -But before any of the women 
arrived at the sepulchre, and sometime before the dawn of the 
day, there was an Earthquake. At or about the same time an 
angel descended, and rolled away the stone from the sepulchre, 
and seated himself upon it. The watch were affrighted, and 
fled from the place, and the angel disappeared. 

3. Matt, xxviii. 1 ; Mark xvi. 1. — After this event, some 
of the women arrived. Mary Magdalen, Mary the mother of 
James and Joses, certainly ; and perhaps Salome also : but if 
the latter did not accompany the two Marys, she was not long 
behind them. 

4. Matt, xxviii. 1; Mark xvi. 2; John xx. 1. — It was 
very early, yet dark, when they first came to the sepulchre. 
On their way they talked about the stone which they saw 
Joseph and Nicodemus place before the door of the sepulchre, 
and were troubled about it. But as they came up to the place, 
they discovered with astonishment that it had been already 
removed. 

5. John xx. 1, 2. — Mary Magdalen, seeing the sepulchre 
open, and the stone removed to a distance, concluded at once 
that the body of the Lord had been taken out of it, and carried 
away. Without stopping to investigate the fact, she imme- 
diately left her companions, and ran to tell Peter and John. 

6. Mark xvi. 5. — Mary Magdalen having thus departed, the 
other Mary, with Salome (who either came with the two Marys, 
or arrived, it is probable, soon after) entered the sepulchre, 
and, while within it, saw an angel, who told them that the Lord 
had risen, and gave them a message to the disciples. 

7. Matt, xxviii. 8 ; Mark xvi. 8. — Affrighted at the sight 
of the angel, they quickly left the sepulchre and fled — not 
daring even to speak, so great was their fear. 

8. Luke xxiv. 2 — 9. Soon after, another and probably a 
larger company of women arrived at the sepulchre, not having 
met Mary the mother of James, and Salome, who but a short 
time before had fled from it. As they also found the stone 
rolled way, they entered. They saw that the body of Jesus 
was not there. Perhaps they noticed the linen clothes lying 



448 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

and the napkin. But this is not said. Being perplexed, and 
unable to account for what they saw, two angels, in the form 
of men, appeared standing with them. The angels, or one of 
them, announced the fact of the Lord's resurrection, as the 
same or another angel had to the other company, hut gave them 
no message. These women then left the sepulchre with the 
purpose to go to the apostles, and tell them what they had seen 
and heard. 

9. John xx. 3 — 10. — Soon after this John arrived, and then 
Peter ; and soon after Peter, Mary Magdalen, who, some time 
before, had gone in search of them. John coming up first, 
stooped down and looked into the sepulchre ; whence we con- 
clude the morning had so far advanced that there was light 
enough to see clearly. While in this posture, perhaps, Peter 
came up; and without pausing long, if at all, he went in. 
John, emboldened by Peter's example, followed. They saw 
nothing but the linen clothes lying and the napkin. The body 
they found not. No angel appeared to them to explain the 
wonder. Having verified Mary's words, and seen what they 
could, they returned to their homes. 

10. John xx. 11 — 13. — But Mary Magdalen lingered still at 
the sepulchre, with no other object, as we can perceive, but to 
vent her sorrow. Whether Peter or John had told her what 
they had seen within the sepulchre, we are not informed ; but 
whether or not, she stooped down, looked in, and saw two 
angels sitting, the one at the head, the other at the foot of the 
place where the body of Jesus had lain. Immediately they, or 
one of them, addressed her, "Woman, why weepest thou?" 
This question she answered without fear, supposing, no doubt, 
that they were men. 

11. Mark xvi. 9 ; John xx. 14. — On perceiving these per- 
sons within the sepulchre, she naturally turned away from it, 
and, in doing so, perceived obliquely behind her another per- 
son, whom she took to be the gardener. It was, in fact, Jesus 
himself. This was the first appearance of the Lord after his 
resurrection to any of his disciples. 

12. John xx. 15 — 17. — Jesus put to her the same question 
the angels had, and also another. Her reply shows how entirely 
unconscious she was of his presence ; but upon his pronouncing 
her name, instantly she recognized him. He gave her a mes- 
sage to his brethren, and disappeared. 



HARMONY OF CHAPTERS. 449 

13. John xx. 18. — Mary having thus seen the Lord, has- 
tened from the sepulchre, not sorrowful as before, but with 
intense joy, to tell the disciples what she had seen. Probably 
she ran to find Peter and John first, to correct the false impres- 
sion she had given them, and which their own observation had 
confirmed. These apostles had not long before left the place, 
and perhaps had not yet reached their homes, when Mary 
departed the second time to find them. As she met others 
afterwards, she no doubt delivered to them the joyful message. 

14. Luke xxiv. 10. — In the mean time the second party of 
women, of whom Luke speaks, were on their way to find the 
apostles, and tell them what they had seen. But Mary had 
found Peter and John, and perhaps some other of the disciples 
or apostles, before they returned, and, as Luke himself inti- 
mates, had anticipated their information. 

15. Matt, xxviii. 8, 11. — Not long after this the first party 
of women, consisting of Mary the mother of James and Joses, 
Salome, and perhaps some others, returned and found the dis- 
ciples. Their fear, it is probable, had kept them back, till 
Jesus met them and composed their minds. 

16. Luke xxiv. 11. — Notwithstanding these reiterated assur- 
ances of the women, the apostles were incredulous — in fact they 
regarded their reports as idle tales. 

17. Luke xxiv. 12 — 34. — But Peter, on hearing this second 
account of Mary Magdalen, arose hastily and ran the second 
time to the sepulchre, and stooping down saw the linen clothes 
lying by themselves, as he had seen them before, but did not 
enter the sepulchre again. Perhaps he hoped the Lord would 
appear to him, as he had to Mary. Some suppose that on this 
second visit, either at the sepulchre or on his way returning 
from it, the Lord did appear to Peter; but this particular is 
not recorded. All we know is, that at some time before even- 
ing, and long enough before, to make the fact known among the 
disciples, the Lord did actually appear to Peter, and on his 
assurance the other apostles appear to have believed the fact. 
1 Cor. xv. 5. 

18. Matt, xxviii. 11, 15.— About the time the first party 
of women returned to the city and found the apostles, the watch 
who had been set to guard the sepulchre also came into the city 
and informed the chief priests of the wonderful things they had 

57 



450 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

witnessed, and how they were frightened from the place by the 
appearance of an angel. 

19. Luke xxiv. 13, 30, 31. — After the return of the 
second and larger party of women to the city — perhaps about 
mid-day or a little before, Cleopas, supposed to be the same as 
Alpheus, and another disciple, whose name we do not know, set 
out from Jerusalem to go to Emmaus, a village about seven and 
a half or eight miles north-west from Jerusalem. When they 
set forth these disciples had v heard only the report of the second 
party of women (verse 22,) who spoke merely of having seen a 
vision of angels. While on their way to Emmaus, Jesus joined 
them in the guise of a traveller. They did not, like Mary 
Magdalen, at first recognize him; but at Emmaus, while re- 
clining with them at meat, he made himself known and immedi- 
ately disappeared. Allowing three hours for the walk to Em- 
maus, we may conjecture that this occurred between 3 o'clock 
and 4 o'clock, p. M., according to our mode of reckoning time. 
This was the Lord's fourth appearance on that day, if we 
assume that he had before this time appeared to Peter. See 
verse 34. 

20. Mark xvi. 14 ; Luke xxiv. 33 ; John xx. 19. — Cleopas 
and his companion did not remain long at Emmaus, whatever 
their intention was before. Rising the same hour — that is with 
all convenient speed — they hastened back to the city, to tell 
their brethren of this wonderful interview. They found the 
apostles, or most of them, assembled, but in a state of excite- 
ment: for, before this, the apostles had heard of the Lord's 
appearance to Simon, and that was the topic which engrossed 
them, when Cleopas and his companion entered the room where 
they were assembled. According to John, the time of this 
meeting was evening, though still on the first day of the week. 
Mark represents the company as still reclining at table. Hence 
we infer that it was the time of their evening repast. As the 
sun set at that season near six o'clock, we may conjecture that 
Cleopas and his companion joined the company about that time, 
or a little after: for the company may have assembled some 
short time before Cleopas entered. It is probable Peter was 
not there, and quite certain that Thomas was not. 

21. Luke xxiv. 36. — While Cleopas and his companion were 
relating what they had seen and heard, Jesus himself appeared 
in the midst of them. The whole company were terrified and 
affrighted, supposing they saw a spirit. Cleopas and his com- 
panion, for aught that is said, shared in the fright and misap- 



HARMONY OF CHAPTERS. 451 

prehension. Yet, as the remark is general, perhaps it was 
intended to be applied only to those of the company who had 
not seen him before. 

22. Luke xxiv. 38 — 40; John xx. 20. — Immediately the 
Lord allayed their fears. He knew their thoughts, and con- 
vinced them of the reality of his person and presence, by exhibit- 
ing his hands and feet to their sight and touch. Yet even after 
that exhibition and proof, they believed not for joy. The won- 
der was too great to believed. 

• 

23. Mark xvi. 14 ; Luke xxiv. 44 — 49. — Jesus, therefore, 
resorted to another proof. He called for meat. . Accordingly 
one at the table handed him a piece of broiled fish, and (another, 
perhaps) a piece of honeycomb, which he took and ate before 
them. This proof, it appears, convinced them ; for immediately 
Jesus began to instruct them, and open their minds for the ap- 
prehension of the truths he communicated. This was the fifth 
appearance of the Lord on that day; but before this time he 
had not appeared to the apostles collectively. 

24. Luke xxiv. 50, 51; John xx. 21, 23. — How long this 
interview continued, we are not informed. If we may judge 
from the number and importance of the topics he touched upon, 
it was not very brief. It must have reminded them of their 
interview with him on the Thursday evening before. When his 
discourse was concluded, it appears they all left the apartment 
where they had assembled, and Jesus led them as far as Bethany, 
about fifteen furlongs, or nearly two miles from Jerusalem, and 
having blessed them, he was parted from them, and was carried 
up into heaven. This occurred in the night of the Lord's day, 
at what hour of night we know not. His last ascension, forty 
days afterwards, was from Mount Olivet, which was only five 
furlongs distant from Jerusalem, or one-third of the distance of 
Bethany. Acts i. 12; John xi. 18. 

25. John xx. 26, 29. — Eight days after, that is on the Sun- 
day following, the disciples met again, and Thomas was with 
them. Jesus appeared to them again, much in the manner he 
had before. On this occasion he exhibited his hands and side 
to Thomas, which effectually removed his incredulity. The 
Evangelist records nothing more of this interview than what 
passed between the Lord Jesus and Thomas; nor does he inform 
us when, where, or how he disappeared. 

26. Matt, xxviii. 16. — The feast of the Passover by this 



452 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

time having ended, and the women having conveyed to the dis- 
ciples generally the message which the angels and Jesus also 
had sent to them, and the fact of his resurrection having been 
proved by the positive testimony of at least sixteen of their 
number who had seen him, the disciples generally, and several 
of the apostles returned to Galilee to await the fulfilment of 
his promise to appear to all of them there. Matt, xxviii. 16, 7 ; 
Mark xvi. 7. 

27. John xxi. 1. — Some of the apostles, however, lingered 
behind, among whom was Peter. At his suggestion, Thomas, 
Nathaniel, James, and John, and two other disciples went a fish- 
ing to the Sea of Tiberias. On this occasion Jesus appeared 
to them again. He spoke to them all, and conversed with Peter 
in the hearing of the others. This was his seventh appearance, 
but the fourth only of those which John particularly records. 
The time of it we have no means of determining. 

28. Matt, xxviii. 16. — His next appearance was the pro- 
mised one in Galilee, upon a mountain, in the presence of the 
eleven apostles and of more than five hundred of his disciples. 
On this occasion also he instructed them in the nature and ob- 
jects of their mission. 

29. After this he appeared the ninth time, to James, as Paul 
informs us in 1 Cor. xv. 7, but the Evangelists do not mention 
this appearance. 

30. The only other appearance which is particularly men- 
tioned, was to the eleven apostles near Jerusalem, immediately 
before his visible ascension to heaven, from Mount Olivet. This 
occurred on the fortieth day after his resurrection. Acts i. 1 — 9. 

Of these appearances Paul mentions five, in 1 Cor. xv. 5 — 7, 
viz, 1, that to Peter; 2, to the twelve; 3, to the five hundred; 
4, to James ; 5, to all the apostles. He omits the appearances — 
1, to Mary Magdalen; 2, to the women returning from the 
sepulchre; 3, to Cleopas and his companion; 4, to all the 
apostles, or at least to nine of them, on the evening of the day 
of his resurrection, when Thomas was absent ; 5, to seven of 
the apostles at the sea of Tiberias. It is only by collating the 
Evangelists and the apostle Paul that we make out the number 
ten; yet some commentators have supposed that he appeared 
at many other times, of which we have no account. But the 
manner in which Paul alludes to the subject inclines us to 
doubt this opinion. 



RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. . 453 

We now resume our annotations according to the order of 
the foregoing summary. 

THE RESURRECTION OF THE LORD JESUS. 

We have seen that after Pilate had judicially ascertained, 
through the centurion, the death of Jesus, he freely granted 
his dead body to Joseph of Arimathea, and gave orders to 
deliver it to him. In all this Pilate acted officially, as the 
Governor and Chief Justiciary of Judea. The time at which 
Joseph made his request to Pilate, we have supposed, was soon 
after three o'clock in the afternoon of Friday. Matthew 
indeed says it was at evening [piptac, de yevofievr^ — xxvii. 57 ;) 
but the Jews were accustomed to call the whole of the afternoon 
until sunset, (dfaa) evening. As the Sabbath commenced at 
sunset, we infer that Joseph had received the body and de- 
posited it in his own tomb before that time ; for it was neces- 
sary, in order to fulfil our Lord's own words, Matt. xii. 40, 
that his body should lie within the grave at least some portion 
of three days, according to the Jewish reckoning. Besides, the 
strictness and reverence with which the pious Jews observed 
the Sabbath, Luke xxiii. 56, justifies the inference that Joseph 
and Nicodemus completed their labour of love before the Sab- 
bath began. 

We have seen also how these pious disciples secured the 
body in its resting-place, and what measures the chief priests 
and Pharisees, with the approbation of Pilate, adopted on the 
next day to prevent the removal of the body covertly or by 
any fraudulent means. Thus secured, the body remained as 
it was laid, cold and motionless, during a part of Friday after- 
noon, the whole of Friday night, the whole of Saturday, or the 
Jewish Sabbath, and some part of Saturday night, with which 
the first day of the ensuing week began. At some time in the 
night, and as some suppose — though without the express 
warrant of the Scriptures — soon after midnight, the human 
soul of the Lord Jesus, in union with his Divine nature, 
returned from Paradise, entered the tomb, took possession of 
the body it had so lately left on the cross, reanimated it, and 
came forth. No human eye, as we suppose, witnessed this 
event. It was first announced some time, perhaps some hours, 
afterwards, by angels, whose words were verified at the moment 
by the opened and empty sepulchre. Before we proceed with 
the Evangelists, it may be useful to dwell a little on this won- 
derful event, which must be acknowledged by all Christians as 
absolutely fundamental. The apostle Paul makes the whole 



454 . NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

truth of the gospel, and the very salvation of the elect, depend 
upon the truth and reality of the fact. He says: "If Christ 
be not risen, our preaching is (xevov) vain, and your faith is 
is (xevrj) vain." 1 Cor. xv. 14. Again: "If Christ be not 
raised, your faith is [not simply xevy, empty, but fiaraca, foolish, 
as well as empty or groundless] vain. Ye are yet in your 
sins,'- verse 17. Nor is there any hope of the resurrection of 
others. For if Christ, the head, be not risen from the dead, 
how can believers in him, the members of his body, be raised 
from the dead? The dead in Christ are perished, verse 18, 
not merely fallen asleep, if Christ be not raised. 

This doctrine, then, is equal in importance to any other in 
the Scriptures. It is, indeed, essentially connected with the 
doctrine of our Lord's Divine nature, and is, in fact, proved by 
it. For if we believe that the Son of God, the second person 
of the Trinity, became incarnate in the person of the Lord 
Jesus, so that he was truly God and truly man in one person, 
nothing can be more reasonable than the doctrine of his resur- 
rection. The greater wonder, by far, is that the Son of God 
should take upon himself the nature of man at all, and espe- 
cially that he might die. See Acts ii. 24. It is only when we 
call in question, or lose sight of his Divine nature, as Socinians 
and Unitarians do, that the fact of his resurrection seems to 
require proof. To this consideration we add, that the doctrine 
is absolutely essential to the consistency and the truth of the 
other Scriptures. Our Lord himself declared that "As the 
Father hath life in himself, even so he hath given to the Son to 
have life in himself." John v. 26. He declared also that 
"he had power to lay down his life, and power to take it again." 
John x. 18. We have seen how he fulfilled one part of this 
declaration by delivering up his spirit at the appointed moment, 
and committing it as a trust into the hands of the Father. His 
spiritual nature went forth from his body, as we might go forth 
from a house or tent. The other part he fulfilled in the same 
way. As he was perfectly voluntary in becoming incarnate at 
first, so now, by an act of his own, he became incarnate the 
second time in the dead body he had shortly before left, as it 
lay embalmed in the sepulchre of Joseph, and quickened it into 
new and immortal life. By this act he constituted himself the 
second Adam, the head of the new creation, and especially of 
all his redeemed. Widely different were the objects, separately 
considered, of the first and second incarnations of the Son of 
God. His first incarnation was in order that he might offer the 
body he had assumed on the cross, that thereby he might put 
away sin, destroy the dominion of Satan, deliver the creature 
(that is, the world itself) from the bondage of corruption, re- 



RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 455 

deem and glorify his elect Church, and through it make known 
in all worlds, and to all orders of creatures, the manifold wis- 
dom of God. His second incarnation was the inauguration of 
his work of new creation. It was then that he cast off the image 
of sinful flesh, Rom. viii. 3, or rather (shall we say?) moulded 
that image into a new form, which, instead of being a copy from 
any other, is to be the pattern of the bodies of his elect, the 
Church of the first-born, his brethren. Rom. viii. 29. 

This headship of Christ, as the second Adam, is the crowning 
blessing of God's covenant with David. Hence the apostle 
Paul, referring to 2 Sam. vii. 19, and 1 Chron. xvii. 17, calls 
him, by way of contrast to the head of our fallen race, the 
second Adam, the Lord from heaven. 1 Cor. xv. 45.* 

In this connection it is proper to refer to Heb. x. 5, where 
the same apostle, quoting Ps. xl. 6, ascribes to the Saviour the 
words, "A body hast thou prepared me." These words, no 
doubt, had begun to be fulfilled when he was born into the 
world, and were fulfilling while he increased in stature from 
infancy to manhood. The use the apostle makes of them, 
shows that their primary reference is to the priestly office and 
sacrificial work of Christ. But may they not also refer to that 
adult frame, perfect without a blemish or the fracture of a 
bone, which, after having been suspended on the cross as a sac- 
rifice, was laid, as we have seen, in the sepulchre ? If we may 
so consider them, they will remind us of the body prepared for 
the first Adam, out of the dust of the earth, in its full and 
perfect measure and stature. We conceive of it as a most 
exquisite workmanship, but without intelligence or life, or more 
inherent power to move than the mould from which it had been 
made. Just so, lay the body of the second Adam in the tomb, 

* Dr. Kennicott renders 1 Chron. xvii. 17 thus: "And thou hast regarded 
me (David) according to the order of the Adam that is future, or the man that 
is from above," [for the word j-j^yfcft ver y remarkably signifies hereafter in 
respect of time, and from above in respect of place.] Hence St. Paul, com- 
bining both senses, says the second man is the Lord from heaven. 1 Cor. xv. 
45. " Adam is the figure of him that was to come." (rsu ju&acvtcs — Rom. v. 
14 ; rather say, of the coming one, rev ip^o/mmu, that is, the future Adam.) 

Bishop Horsley renders the verse thus: "And thou hast regarded me 
(David) in the arrangement about the man that is to be from above," &c. — 
that is, in forming the scheme of incarnation, regard was had to the honour of 
David and his house, as a secondary object, by making it a part of the plan 
that Messiah should be born in his family. The sense of 2 Sam. vii. 19 is the 
same, though the phraseology differs somewhat. This remark of Bishop 
Horsley was intended to apply to the incarnation of Messiah in the womb of 
the virgin. The second incarnation, in the sepulchre of Joseph, had respect 
to much higher objects than the honour of David, if the .observations before 
made upon John xix. 26, 27, are well founded. See vol. ix. 645, 646. The 
view here taken of the resurrection of the Lord, it is submitted, confirms the 
view taken of the passage in John xix. last cited. 



456 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

perfectly formed and prepared, though by the process of natu- 
ral growth, ready to be occupied by the spiritual and Divine 
nature of Jehovah Jesus. It was the same great Being who 
gave animation and life to both these bodies, but in different 
degrees and for vastly different ends. To the full-formed body 
of the first Adam the Lord Christ, as Creator, imparted the 
breath of life, and made him a living soul. Gen. ii. 7; 1 Cor. 
xv. 45. The other body he himself, as the creative, quickening 
spirit, entered and occupied, that through it and the Church, 
which is his mystical body, he might for ever make manifest to 
his intelligent creatures the Divine nature and glory. 

But not to insist on these passages, which are adverted to in 
this place rather for the analogies they suggest than as the 
most obvious proofs of our proposition, it is sufficient to say, 
that the whole doctrine of the glorified Church is inseparably 
connected with our Lord's resurrection. See Col. iii. 3. With- 
out it the gospel is an idle tale, and the preachers of it false 
witnesses before God. 

The resurrection of Christ, which we proceed now to consider, 
is a question of fact, to be decided by testimony, and so the 
Scriptures represent it. Acts i. 22; ii. 32; iii. 15; iv. 33; 
v. 32; vii. 56; x. 41, 42; 1 Cor. xv. 15. Being the corner- 
stone of the Christian's hope it has been fiercely assailed. It 
is not our purpose to consider this testimony except so far as it 
falls in with the due exposition of the evangelic narrative to 
do so. Those who desire a full discussion of this whole subject 
may be referred to the elaborate discourse of Humphrey Ditton 
concerning the resurrection of Christ, or the less extensive, 
though learned and convincing work of Gilbert West, upon the 
same subject. We return now to the narrative: 

Matt, xxviii. 1. "In the end of the Sabbath* as it began 

* '0-|e <fi <r*@fiz<ra>v, after the Sabbath was ended, peracto sabbato. Figura- 
tively the word signifies a week; because each week ended with the Sabbath. 
The Evangelists use different expressions to denote the time when the women 
first came to the sepulchre. Matthew says it was t» i7ri<pa>9-iuvcr», viz., tjuepct or 
iu>. These words may signify in the morning twilight or at the near approach of 
day, as appears by the use of the word by Luke xxiii. 54, where he applies it 
to the approach of the Sabbath, which began at sunset, and of course with the 
darkening rather than the lighting up of the sky. Mark denotes the time by 
the words Ktctv 7rpm, very early. Yet he adds the words av*Tu\a.v<roc tov »x/ov, 
which create a difficulty. But the participle is in the first aorist, and may be 
translated orituro sole, see Erasmus's Annotations, or cum sol oriri inciperet, when 
the sun was beginning to rise ; or at the first sign of the approach of the sun. 
Luke's expression is opBpov fiaQm (subaudi ovrog.) The word op&pos denotes in pure 
Greek the whole of the morning twilight, from the first and faintest glimmer- 
ing of it, until sunrise. Of course opQpo? /3*6v? signifies the early dawn in con- 
tradistinction to ipQpw io-x&ros. If we feel a difficulty in apprehending the pre- 
cise meaning of this expression, it will be removed by an actual observation of 
the approach of the morning light upon a cloudless sky. At first a mere 



THE WOMEN AT THE SEPULCHRE. 457 

to dawn towards the first day of the week, came Mary Mag- 
dalen and the other Mary to see the sepulchre." 

The other Mary here spoken of was Mary the mother of 
James and Joses, who sat over against the sepulchre when 
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus closed it with a great 
stone. Matt, xxvii. 56, 61; Mark xv. 47. John mentions only 
Mary Magdalen, but an expression occurs in her communica- 
tion to Peter and John, from which we may. infer that she went 
not alone. "They have taken away the Lord and (pida/isv) 
we know not where they have laid him." * 

Mark seems to say that Salome also accompanied Mary Mag- 
dalen. Perhaps she did, although some commentators think 
otherwise. f The question is not important. There can be little 

glimmering of grey light appears in the East. This the Greeks called c/jS/joj. 
Thucydides (3 : 112, 4, 110) has ap*. opbpa, on the first dawn. This first feeble 
beginning of light gradually increases;' the sky becomes brighter and brighter 
until it is changed into the redness of flame, and presently the sun itself 
appears, o »x/o? uvarshhu. John denotes the time of Mary Magdalen's arrival by 
the words a-norta? In ovo-ae, while it was yet dark. He does not say ntcrog \rt 
oii<r»g, while it was yet night. For the night was past and the first glimmering 
of light had appeared. This agrees with the more general expression of Luke 
hp&pou /gafliof, and with Mark's xi*.v 7rpoi, and Matthew's rn i?rt^a)crKcva-n, understood 
in the sense explained. Yet these expressions do not necessarily denote the 
same moment of time, or, indeed, any moment of time with exact precision ; 
nor need we maintain that they do, in order to the consistency of the Evan- 
gelists. For proceeding, as the women probably did, from different parts of 
the city or its neighbourhood, and probably not setting out at exactly the 
same moment, they would naturally arrive at the sepulchre at different times : 
and although all were early, yet some would arrive earlier than others. If 
we suppose the Evangelists had in view different parties — and there was a con- 
siderable number of these women, Luke xxiii. 55; xxiv. 10, — it may serve to 
account for the diversities of expression. We add the remark of an ancient 
commentator upon the first part of this verse (o-^t Si crafifi. m tmqw. compared 
with Mark xvi. 1, 2,) " Evangelists duo tempora insinuant ; unum in quo 
Dominus surrexit quod est vespera sabbati; alteram in quo apparuit quod est 
mane prima sabbati." 

* The word ciJzptv must not be read as two words, cjVa, jutv, I know not, but 
as one word, we know not. The particle ju- : v cannot easily stand in such a con- 
struction. Afterwards, when she was alone, at the sepulchre, she changes 
the expression from the plural to the singular number, see John xx. veise 13. 
As it was John's object in the first part of this chapter to relate only how he 
and Peter were first informed of the resurrection, and what they did and saw, 
he had no occasion to mention any of the females who visited the sepulchre, 
except Mary Magdalen. 

f A learned German commentator suggests that the whole of the first verse 
of the xvi. chapter of Mark, excepting the words k-ju Jiotyivop&iQv rev ffa.p@ai.rw, 
should be thrown into a parenthesis, and the 47th verse of the xv. chapter be 
read in connection with these words joined immediately to the 2d verse of the 
xvi. chapter. Thus : " And Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of Joses beheld 
where he was laid; and after the Sabbath was past, and very early in the 
morning of the first day of the week they came unto the sepulchre (For 
Mary Magdalen and Mary the mother of James and Salome had bought sweet 
spices that they might come and anoint him.") This construction allows us 
to translate tiyofxa-uy as a pluperfect, and thus harmonize Mark with Luke xxiii. 
56. The authorized English version, though it renders ti-yop. as a pluperfect, yet 

58 



458 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

doubt, that if she did not actually go with them, she followed 
soon after, as she had joined them in buying and preparing 
sweet spices, that they might go together and anoint the body 
of their Lord. 

Mark xvi. 3, 4. "And they said among themselves, Who 
shall roll us away the stone from the door of the sepulchre ? 
And when they looked they saw that the stone was rolled away : 
for it was exceeding great." 

These women, it appears, knew nothing of the military guard 
which had been set. They departed from the place before sun- 
set on Friday, Luke xxiii. 56, and probably before Joseph and 
Nicodemus. Had they known of the guard also, they would 
have perhaps been deterred from making so early a visit to the 
sepulchre alone and unprotected. We observe that Matthew 
alone informs us how the guard was dispersed, and the stone 
removed. Mark, Luke, and John state only the fact that the 
stone was removed. The words of Matthew should be rendered 
thus : 

Matt, xxviii. 2. "But lo! there had been" (before these 
women came,) "a great earthquake: besides, an angel of the 
Lord, (xazaftao) having descended from heaven, and having 
come near, had rolled* away the stone from the door and seated 
himself upon it." 

At what hour precisely these events occurred we have no 
means of determining; we only know that they occurred after 
the Sabbath was ended and before these women arrived. The 
military guard only witnessed these demonstrations of the Divine 
power, but what appalled them was the appearance of the 
angel. The Evangelist adds, Matt, xxviii. 3, 4, "His counte- 
nancef was like lightning and his raiment white as snow, and for 
fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead." 

We are not to suppose, as some have, that the Evangelist 

represents the purchase as having been made after the Sabbath was ended. 
Thus rendered, Matthew and Mark agree in representing the two Marys as the 
first to visit the sepulchre in the morning. It is highly probable, however, as 
above suggested, that Salome, if not with them, was not far behind them. 

* The participles and verbs in this verse, except the last, are in the aorist 
tense, and may be rendered in the pluperfect, if the sense requires. The aorist, 
it is well known, is so called quia non definit an imperfectum, perfection vel plus- 
quam perfectum denotetur, Vossius Harm., lib. iii. cap. iii. § 7, Vjgerus de idiot. 
Or. L., and the marginal translation of the A. E. V. The word kxi in this 
verse, is adversative. Tap often signifies also, but, further, besides, proeterea — 
being used as a particle of transition merely. 

f ']cf«* in this verse signifies the same as jucp<pn or iiSoq. It means more than 
7rpo^ai7ro7, which denotes only the face or countenance. The Evangelist means to 
say, that the whole form of the angel at the time of his descent was dazzling 
like a flash of lightning, and his (tvjujuct) attire, or what seemed such, was as 
white as snow. 






THE DESCENT OF THE ANGEL. 459 

derived these particulars from the soldiers directly or medi- 
ately through the priests. The soldiers were too much over- 
whelmed with fear to observe accurately, or relate truthfully, 
more than their overpowering effect. The Evangelist wrote by 
inspiration ; and God, who taught Moses the wonders of crea- 
tion, revealed to Matthew whatever he thought it needful that 
the church should know. Yet we observe nothing here — (and 
it is remarkable) — that can minister to vain curiosity. Of the 
operations of the Divine energies within the sepulchre — the 
unrolling of the linen from the body ; the orderly arrangement 
of it with the other clothing; the rising of the body from the 
place where it had been laid ; the quickening it with the ener- 
gies of immortal life; the manner in which it came forth, and 
the like actions — not a word is dropped, and to us they are as 
inscrutable as the energies which will hereafter gather and re- 
fashion the sleeping dust of the saints. Nor does the Evangel- 
ist inform us, even whether these demonstrations of power pre- 
ceded, attended, or followed the coming forth of the body of 
the Lord Jesus. The angel who announced the fact of the 
resurrection to the women informed them of nothing more. 
This reserve is an unequivocal note of the inspiration of the 
record. 

Most readers of the New Testament, it is probable, assume, 
but without reflection, that the descent of the angel, the rolling 
away of the stone, and the earthquake, were preparatory to 
the act of our Lord's resurrection, and that he did not actually 
come forth from the sepulchre until after the impediment of 
the stone had been removed. The assumption may be accord- 
ing to truth, although the Evangelist does not affirm it. He 
is silent on all these particulars. For aught that is written, 
the Lord may have arisen and come forth before the angel's 
descent, and such was the belief of some ancient commentators. 
See G-rotius on Matt, xxviii. 2; Vosszus, Harmony, lib. iii. 
cap. ii. § 5. Yet this opinion, also, is without express warrant. 
The opening of the sepulchre was necessary to expose it to the 
public view: it was a confirmatory proof of the angel's an- 
nouncement of the resurrection ; but that it was necessary to 
the exit of the Almighty occupant, is what we should not dare 
to affirm. It is vain to speculate how Omnipotence accom- 
plishes its purposes. The descent of the angel and the earth- 
quake proved to the watch, and through them to the priests 
and the nation, the presence of the power of God bringing to 
naught all their might and precaution. Let us not, however, 
understand the language of the Evangelist too literally. The 
apparel of the angel was, no doubt, visionary, and the rolling 
away of the stone not the work literally of his hand, but the 



460 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

effect of the Divine power with which he was invested, to be 
exerted at his will; see Matt. xvii. 20; xxi. 21; Mark xi. 23; 
Luke xvii. 6, in accomplishment of the purpose for which he 
had been sent. How sublime; how awful the scene! The 
sudden lightning-like descent of the angel at a still hour of the 
night — the instantaneous opening of the sealed sepulchre — the 
removal of the huge stone {fJ.eya<; a<podpa) as a pebble before 
him, and the sudden appearance of the majestic, glorious form 
of the angel (iTrauco) over it and apparently resting upon it, in 
a sitting posture. Such a scene was well suited to strike the 
keepers with dismay. 

How long the angel retained his glorious form; or how long 
he remained in the posture which the Evangelist describes— 
whether until the keepers fled, or whether he disappeared to 
relieve them of their fears and allow them to recover their 
faculties and their strength, are topics on which we have no 
light. We only know that, when the women arrived, the terror 
of the scene had passed away. 

This passage, Matt, xxviii. 2, 3, 4, is evidently parenthetical. 
Mark, we have seen, represents the women as anxious about 
the removal of the stone, but when they reached the place, 
behold, all was changed ! No stone ! no guard ! no seal ! 
Matthew alone explains how this change was produced. The 
women, as we learn from John, did not immediately enter the 
sepulchre, but seeing the stone removed, they took it as certain, 
without stopping to examine, that the sepulchre had been 
opened and the body removed from it by persons unknown. 
It is evident, also, that when the two Marys first arrived at the 
sepulchre, no angel or human person appeared to, or was seen 
by them. All was yet dark; they perceived nothing but the 
removed stone and open sepulchre. Leaving her companion, 
Mary Magdalen, whose temperament, like Peter's, was ardent 
and impulsive, John xx. 2, "runneth and cometh to Simon 
Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith 
unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, 
and we know not where they have laid him." 

Mary Magdalen having thus departed, the other Mary was 
left alone in the dark at the sepulchre, unless Salome was of 
their party, as no doubt she intended to be. But soon, it is 
probable, other females arrived, not all at one time perhaps, but 
in small parties and in succession. To the company thus 
formed the angel spoken of by Matthew appeared, but evidently 
in an altered form. According to Mark xvi. 5, the company 
entered the sepulchre before they saw the angel, and though 
Matthew does not expressly say so, the words which he ascribes 






THE ANGEL AT THE SEPULCHRE. 461 

to the angel imply at least that he addressed them not from 
the stone, but from within the sepulchre. 

Matt, xxviii. 5, 6. "Fear not ye, for I know that ye seek 
Jesus who was crucified. He is not here — he is risen as he 
said. Come see the place where the Lord lay." 

This speech of the angel is full of majesty. It rises at each 
pause, and at each upward step the wonder heightens. "Ye 
seek Jesus the crucified one. He is not here, He lives as he 
said. See, here the place where the Lord lay." The angel 
calls him The Lord, the Lord of angels as of men, a sort of 
xotvovyjotq the angel uses : as n he had said, " Our common 
Lord." He assigns no cause of his resurrection but his word 
(xadcoz siTrs, sicut dixit) as he said. Could the angel have thus 
spoken had not Jesus been truly divine ? 

We observe that Matthew mentions only one angel, viz. that 
one who spoke the words we have just considered. He says 
nothing expressly about the position he occupied, or of his pos- 
ture while speaking. But, as before observed, we infer from 
his language, that it was addressed to the women from within 
the sepulchre ; nor does Matthew describe the angel's appear- 
ance. Mark represents him as a young man clothed in a long 
white garment, sitting on the right side. In these representa- 
tions there is no contradiction, but only greater particularity in 
one than in the other. Neither Evangelist affirms that there 
were not other angels present : and why may we not believe 
that there were myriads of these holy beings gathered around 
that place, each ready to appear visibly and perform his 
assigned part ? At the birth of Jesus, a solitary angel at first 
appeared in the fields of Bethlehem to announce the event to 
the shepherds ; but suddenly there appeared with him a multi- 
tude of the heavenly host. Luke ii. 9 — 13. And why only 
one present now, and not a multitude ? Can we conceive of an 
event which could more intensely engage angelic minds than 
this second incarnation* of the Lord of glory? 1 Pet. i. 12; 
Job xxxviii. 7. 

Some harmonists suppose that Mary and Salome entered the 
sepulchre before any of the other women arrived, and it may 
have been so ; we have no express information on the question. 
But as they did not enter the sepulchre until there was light 
enough to see objects within it, at least dimly ; they must have 

* In Rev. iii. 14, one of the titles the Lord assumes is, (» ap^n <r»? ktictw); tou 
©av) " The beginning of the Creation of God." Does not his title have respect 
to the new creation spoken of in Rev. xxi. 5 ; and was not this taking to him- 
self the second time the human body thus prepared and glorifying it, that 
"beginning of the New Creation," to which the title alludes? And may not 
Col. i. 15 and 18, also, refer to his glorified humanity? In his Divine nature 
he was without beginning. 



462 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

lingered about the spot some little time before entering, 
although not the whole (dpdpoo) period of the dawning. During 
this time, it is not improbable that some, though perhaps only 
a few, of these devoted friends of the Lord, joined them. Yet 
the company spoken of by Luke appears to have arrived some 
time after the first party left the sepulchre, although it could 
not have been very long. But not to dwell on conjectures, we 
pass on to the message with which the angel charged these 
women. 

Matt, xxviii. 7. "And gojjig quickly, tell his disciples that 
he is risen from the dead." 

Mark adds a particular which Matthew omits : " Go tell his 
disciples awe? Peter." We find no difficulty in understanding 
the reason of this special allusion. And how deeply must this 
message have affected Peter's heart! As an old writer says, it 
was a commission of comfort to all the disciples, for all had 
forsaken him and fled ; but especially was it such to Peter, who 
had denied him with an oath. What follows in this verse was 
addressed by the angel to the women.* 

" Behold he goeth before (pfiai;) you (not auroix;, them) into 
Galilee. There shall ye see (oreads) him : Lo, I have told 
(p[Mv) you." 

These allusions of the angel to the promises made by the 
Saviour in his private intercourse with his disciples, Matt. xxvi. 
32 ; Mark xiv. 28, and to the peculiar sin of Peter, give us a 
glimpse of the intercourse between angels and the Saviour and 
his disciples. Though unseen by mortal eye, they were privi- 
leged to follow in his train, witness his trials and sufferings, 
hear his words, and study in him, as we may believe, the deep 
mysteries of God in the work of redemption. 1 Pet. i. 12 ; 
1 Cor. iv. 9; Matt. iv. 11; xxvi. 53; Heb. i. 14. 

Matt, xxviii. 8. " And going out quickly, [eZsWooaat rayu, 
that is from the sepulchre in which they were,] they ran from 
the sepulchre with fear and great joy to bring the disciples 
word."f 

Mark's language is more forcible than Matthew's. And going 

* Mark xvi. 7, as translated in the E. V., seems inconsistent with this expla- 
nation*. But the punctuation of the original text is faulty. We should put a 
period after Peter, and make the rest of the verse a distinct sentence. " Go 
tell his disciples and Peter." What ? That he is risen, that he is not here. 
In other words, " Go tell his disciples and Peter what I have just told you. 
The particle on like the Hebrew ^ is asseverative, or pleonastic, as it often is, 
e.g. in John vii. 12. Why should the angel charge the women to tell the dis- 
ciples and Peter that Jesus would go before them (viz. the women addressed 
vy.a.;) into Galilee ? 

f To get this sense we put a comma after ra^u, and another after itynjuov, and 
strike out the comma after fxtya.}^;. 






THE FLIGHT OF THE WOMEN FROM THE SEPULCHRE. 463 

out quickly, they fled from the sepulchre. For (rpo/ioz) trem- 
bling and (Ixavaats) amazement (efys) had seized them; neither 
said they anything to any one, i. e. while they were fleeing from 
the sepulchre towards the place from which they had come, for 
they were afraid. 

This picture is drawn from life. The narrative bears internal 
marks of its truthfulness. How natural is Matthew's expres- 
sion! — "fear and great joy." How contrary was this news to 
their expectation ! They had come to the sepulchre to see it, 
and to weep there. They had brought sweet spices to anoint 
his dead body. Could anything be more contrary to their 
expectation than what they saw and heard? The sepulchre 
open — an angel its only occupant — no dead body there — the 
linen clothes lying — the napkin in a place by itself — and the 
explicit announcement of the angel. A strong ray of hope sud- 
denly falls on their hearts. And yet possibly the angelic form 
they seemed to see, and the words they seemed to hear, might 
be unreal, or in some way deceptive. Hence the mixture of 
emotions. Besides, the unwonted sight and voice of the angel 
would naturally excite the strong emotions Mark describes, and 
perhaps even restrain for a time the inclination, if not the 
power, to speak. Then again, their hasty exit from the sepul- 
chre, their speed, and all of them under the influence of common 
emotions. Certainly unlearned, unpractised writers, such as 
Matthew and Mark were, could never have invented a tale so 
true to nature — so life-like. These women having thus fled, 
and the angel perhaps having disappeared, the sepulchre was 
again solitary. But soon, probably very soon, another party of 
women arrived, whose visit is described only by Luke. They 
were the Galilean women of whom he speaks in chap, xxiii. 
5o, 56. These by themselves were a large company, but their 
number was increased by others who joined them. Luke 
xxiv. 1 — 3. " These came at early dawn, bringing the spices 
they had prepared (before the Sabbath,) and found the stone* 
rolled away from the sepulchre, and entering, they found not 
the body of the Lord Jesus." 

Several circumstances prove conclusively that this was a dif- 
ferent party from that mentioned by Matthew and Mark. To 
this party two angels appeared, whom Luke describes as men 

* Tsv kiQov, that stone, (opta-rua;,) viz. that stone which Joseph of Arirnathea 
and Xicodemus had put there, and which the priests and Pharisees had caused 
to be sealed. Yet Luke had not mentioned anything about this stone before. 
He took it for granted, his reader would readily supply this and other circum- 
stances which were generally known. None of the Evangelists wrote as phi- 
losophers or orators write, but as men without culture, content to employ the 
language of common life. Luke is not an exception to this remark. 



464 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

in shining garments. They appeared in the posture of stand- 
ing.* The address of the angels was different, nor did they 
charge the women with any message to the disciples. The ap- 
pearance of the angels, though it impressed the women with 
reverential fear, so that they inclined their faces toward the 
earth, yet had no overpowering effect. They are not repre- 
sented as fleeing hastily from the sepulchre, or as speechless 
through fear. Two objections are sometimes made to this 
view. 

1. It is said that Luke himself mentions (in verse 10) Mary 
Magdalen, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and 
(at XoctloI) the rest with them ; and hence it is inferred these 
were the women intended in the first verse. But if such were 
his meaning, why did he not say, verse 10, It was Mary Mag- 
dalen, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and the 
rest with them, who went (ppdpoo fiadeot;) very early to the 
sepulchre, bearing the spices they had prepared? And why 
did he say in the ninth verse, that these women, whose visit to 
the sepulchre he had described, told all these things to the 
eleven, and to the rest, and in the very next verse repeat that 
Mary Magdalen, and Joanna, and the other Mary told these 
things also to the apostles, if they were both but one and the 
same party? The repetition on this view would be quite use- 
less. 

What the Evangelist intends may be thus stated. In the 
9th verse he says, these women from Galilee, of whom he had 
just spoken, returned from the sepulchre, and told the eleven 
what they had seen. But there were certain other females, 
namely, the Magdalen Mary, and Joanna, and Mary the 
mother of James, and the other women (at Xoinm) of their 
party, who had already been to the apostles before, and had 
told them these things. If this is not the true explanation, 
we can perceive no reason for repeating in the 10th verse what 
had already been stated in the 9th verse. 

2. Another objection is, the phrase by which Luke de- 
notes the time when these women arrived at the sepulchre, 
as being at the very earliest dawn — at the first twinkling of 
gray light, and of course while it was yet dark. In this assump- 
tion we apprehend lies a mistake, and the one which has created 
the greatest difficulty in harmonizing this part of the Evange- 
lists. Luke uses, as we have seen, a word (dpdpoz) which denotes 
the whole period of dawning from its earliest appearance till 

* Gilbert Wakefield says (ima-THo-ov) stood in this place means no more than 
(ho-'jlv) were. The remark may be critically just, but we think the Evangelist 
means to express posture. 



THE ADDRESS OF THE ANGELS. 465 

sunrise. To this lie adds the qualifying word (/9a#uc) deep; 
which, while it puts a negative upon the supposition that it was 
the appearance of the first and faintest ray of light, intimates 
that it was still early ; when the dawn was somewhat, though 
not far advanced.* Whatever difficulty there may be in ad- 
mitting this sense of the expression, there is much more in 
harmonizing on this assumption the other particulars of the 
two narratives, and certainly it is more reasonable to allow 
some latitude to a general expression of time, such as Luke's 
is, than to add to or take from the material circumstances in 
the narrative of either of the Evangelists. Before we leave 
this passage, we should briefly notice the address of these 
angels. 

Luke xxiv. 5, 6, 7. "Why seek ye the living among the 
dead? He is not here, but is risen. Remember how he spake 
unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of Man 
must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, 
and the third day rise again." 

The force of the original is weakened in this translation. 
"Why seek ye the living one — the ever-living Jehovah Jesus — 
among dead mortals?" The expression reminds us of Rev. i. 
17, 18: "I am the first and the last, the living one: I was 
dead, but behold I live for evermore." See John xiv. 6; v. 26. 
Here, as before, we observe the only proof the angels appeal to 
is his own word: "Recollect that while yet in Galilee he 
spake to you [of this very event], saying, It behooveth the Son 
of Man to be delivered," &c. How familiarly these holy beings 
refer to a special communication the Saviour, foreseeing this 
very visit to the sepulchre, had <§ made to these devoted females, 
when perhaps none of his male disciples were present. They 
do not speak as though they were delivering a message with 
which they had been charged, but as of their own motion, 

* 'Aft* hflpei may signify at the very first appearance of dawn. Tlqn opBgov 
means about the dawn of day ; it may be a little before or a little after tne 
first appearance of light. 'Ofyo; fidBug denotes a time when the dawning is 
still deep ; that is, not far advanced, though not the very first appearance of 
light. As when we say early spring, we do not mean the very first moment of 
spring, but an early portion of that season ; so by early dawn we do not mean 
the very first instant of the dawn, but the first part of that period. See a note 
of the Rev. S. T. Bloomfield on Thucyd., book III. § 112, where he endeavours 
to show that ofipcv @*Biog — xinv 7rpa>i and a-w^m \n ouow, all refer to the same 
time, which he expresses by the phrases "peep of day," "the gray dawn." 
He cites most, if not all the places from classic authors in which the expression 
occurs, and comes to his conclusion with some diffidence. Had he not sup- 
posed that the three Evangelists refer to the same party of women, his conclu- 
sion from his authorities would probably have been different. It is believed 
that the word y&iflt/?, in the comparative or superlative degree, does not occur 
in connection with opQpog, and the reason is, that its use in the positive degree 
is to denote time by comparison. 

59 



466 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

reminding them only of what they already knew, and could not 
have forgotten, yet did not believe, as the spices they had pre- 
pared and brought with them proved. We may regard this 
address as a reproof of their unbelief, and its purport may be 
thus expressed: "You ought not to be surprised at any of 
these events which afflict you so much. While yet in Galilee, 
the Lord told you plainly what would befall him on this visit 
to Jerusalem. He told you very expressly, too, that on this 
very day he would rise from the dead. How faithless and slow 
of heart you are to believe his plainest words!" 

We have no means of determining how long this company of 
women remained at the place. They appear to have entered 
the sepulchre immediately upon their arrival. If the dawn had 
then so far advanced that they could clearly distinguish the 
various objects about them, they must have seen what Peter 
and John saw a short time afterwards. On any supposition, 
they saw enough to perplex them greatly. At this juncture 
the angels appeared, and explained the cause of what they saw, 
but c\>uld not understand. 

The first company of women departed quickly from the 
sepulchre, in great fear, by the express command of the angel. 
Matt, xxviii. 8; Mark xvi. 8. The second company were too 
much impressed by the unlooked-for appearance of the angels 
and their address to linger in their presence. There was 
probably a design in these arrangements, bringing first one 
company and then another, and quickly despatching them 
to make way for a third. Thus proofs were multiplied, and the 
news was quickly and widely spread. However this may be, 
when Peter and John arrived, which could not have been long 
afterwards, they saw no person near. 

While these things were occurring, Mary Magdalen found 
Peter and John, and told them how she went to the sepulchre, 
and what were her fears: " They have taken away the Lord 
out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid 
him." What she feared, she affirmed as a fact, but without 
evidence. It was her too hasty conclusion from her finding the 
sepulchre open. It is probable she stated both the fact of the 
open sepulchre and her conclusion from it. 

John xx. 3, 4. "Peter therefore (igyldev) went forth, and 
that other disciple, and came to the sepulchre, and they ran 
both together ; and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and 
came first to the sepulchre." 

The impression Mary's communication made on the minds of 
these disciples may be gathered from these verses. They 
regarded it as very extraordinary. It impressed them very 
deeply. Had she told them she found the sepulchre closed 



PETER AND JOHN AT THE SEPULCHRE. 467 

with the, stone, and surrounded with a military guard, it would 
have been just what they expected, and probably they would 
have remained unmoved where they were. But who could 
have removed the stone and conveyed away the body? To 
what place had it been taken? And what motive could any 
have for such a desecration, especially at that time? By what 
means, if any, could they recover the body, that they might 
bury it elsewhere, beyond the reach of malice? These, or such 
as these, were probably the questions which occupied their 
hearts and thoughts. 

John xx. 5. " And he, stooping down, saw the linen clothes 
lying, yet went he not in." 

John was eager to see what could be seen, but his timidity of 
character prevented him from actually entering. How strange ! 
This disciple, who feared not to stand at the foot of the cross 
during the fearful scene of the crucifixion, had not the courage 
to enter the sepulchre alone! 

John xx. 6, 7. " Then cometh Simon Peter, following 
him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes 
lie, and the napkin that was about his head not lying with the 
linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself." 

We are struck with the particularity of the narrative, 
and its perfect consistency with the known characters of 
these apostles. Peter, upon reaching the sepulchre, did not 
pause an instant. He entered it to ascertain with certainty 
the minutest facts of the case. How consistent this with 
his ardent, decided character ! John, emboldened by Peter's 
example, 

John xx. 8. "Then went in also, and he saw and be- 
lieved" — 

What ? He saw what Peter had seen, viz. the condition of 
the sepulchre and of the linen clothes and napkin, and believed 
what Mary Magdalen had told him. To this interpretation it 
is objected that he might have believed thus much without 
entering the sepulchre. Hence it is inferred by some that he 
believed something more and greater. The particulars he 
records about the clothes and the napkin, and the manner in 
which they were laid, are mentioned as the ground of the 
conclusion he had formed, and which he expresses by the word 
(£.n cot so a zv) believed — a word which is commonly used in a 
religious sense in this gospel, iii. 15 ; x. 26; xix. 35. There 
is force in these considerations. It is to be observed that John 
here speaks for himself only. He does not say anything about 
Peter's reasonings or conclusions, nor does he say that either 
communicated his reflections to the other; but he adds, that 
both he and Peter 



468 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

John xx. 9. " Until that time (pudena)) had not understood 
ovx ijdetoav) the Scripture that he must rise from the dead." 

His meaning, therefore, may be, that reasoning from these 
facts, and recalling our Lord's repeated declaration, that he 
should rise from the dead on the third day, light began to break 
upon his mind, and he soon came to the true conclusion, while 
Peter may have remained ignorant of the true solution until the 
Lord actually appeared to him. These disciples, being left to 
their own conjectures, may have reasoned differently. No inter- 
preting angel appeared to them, and the thought of his resur- 
rection might occur to one and not to the other as a possible 
solution of the strange occurrence. While they lingered about 
the solitary spot, Mary Magdalen returned, but whether any 
inquiries or communications passed between her and them we 
are not informed. Not a word is recorded as having been 
uttered by either Peter or John while they were there. All we 
know is, that having seen what they could, 

John xx. 10, 12. "They went away again to their 
respective homes, while Mary stood without at the sepulchre 
weeping ; and as she wept, she stooped down and looked into 
the sepulchre, and seeth two angels in white sitting, the one at 
the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had 
lain." 

It was the strong affection and deep sorrow of Mary which 
detained her thus alone at the sepulchre. Yet she did not ven- 
ture to enter it, as Peter and John had done. Perhaps she 
designed to do so,* and would have done so, had she not when 
stooping down discovered the angels within, whom she took to 
be men. 

Do we inquire whether these angels were in the sepulchre 
while Peter and John were there, unperceived? Or did they 
enter it after these disciples had departed, without being seen 
by Mary? Were they the same angels that had appeared be- 
fore, or others? These questions we cannot answer; yet we 
may learn from the narrative, however explained, something of 
the extraordinary powers with which these holy beings are 
gifted, and how they can minister unseen to the heirs of salva- 
tion while yet on the earth. 

We do not reflect as we ought what numbers of them may 
move daily in the paths of human activity, wholly unperceived 
by us, or, if perceived, regarded as these were by Mary. 1 Cor. 
iv. 9; Heb. xiii. 2; Luke xv. 10; Matt, xviii. 10; Rom. viii. 38 ; 

* The words TraptKv^tv tk to (xvufxttov may signify, she stooped towards the sepul- 
chre to enter into it. The words and looked in our translation, are not in the 
original. 



MAEY MAGDALEN WEEPING AT THE SEPULCHRE. 469 

1 Tim. v. 21. During the present dispensation, we are clearly 
taught, they fulfil a most important ministry, Heb. i. 14, which 
in the world to come will be supplied by the glorified saints, 
whose service may then be performed for the most part as un- 
perceived as the ministry of the angels is now. Heb. ii. 5; 
Luke xx. 36; Rev. v. 10. 

John xx. 13. "They say unto her, Woman, why weepest 
thou?" 

Why should they ask such a question? Did they not know 
why she wept? Did they purpose to reply to her, but were 
prevented by the unexpected appearance of the Lord himself? 
Or were they conscious of his presence before ? Or was their 
question designed merely to soften her surprise, or to invest the 
occurrence with the appearance of human life? Or do angels 
sympathize in the sorrows of God's people, and administer con- 
solation by silent suggestion, and, when permitted, by audible 
speech ? 

John xx. 13. "She saith unto them, Because they have 
taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid 
him."* 

This answer shows how ignorant this devoted disciple was of 
her Lord's exalted character, and of the real object and end of 
his ministry. It shows us too, how completely his Divine nature 
was concealed in his human, or, perhaps we should say, how 
truly and perfectly he was a man. Mary thought of him only 
as a deceased human friend, whose lifeless, helpless corpse had 
been removed from its resting-place by rude hands — perhaps by 
his enemies. In the fulness of her heart she had come early to 
the sepulchre to embalm his beloved remains, and preserve them 
from early corruption. Her grief was that she was deprived 
of this mournful service. Had she thought of his resurrection 
to life, could she have wept? Could she have inquired about 
where his body was concealed ? How improbable it is, then, 
that Mary, and all those who shared in her disappointment, 
Luke xxiv. 21, could have agreed together to circulate a report 
of his resurrection ! Matt, xxvii. 64. We observe that Mary 
replies to the inquiry of the angels with composure; at least 
without fear of them. She supposed them, in fact, to be men, 
not reflecting that they could not have entered the sepulchre if 
they were such, without her knowledge. 

But the women to whom the angels appeared before, were 
very differently impressed; they made no reply, but fled 
affrighted and speechless from the place. Matt, xxviii. 5, 8; 

* A writer remarks, "Perhaps she surmised that they had done the act, but 
did not like to tax them with it." 



470 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Mark xvi. 6 — 8. Why this difference? We suppose it was 
because the Lord designed to show himself to this disciple, and 
make her the first human witness of his resurrection. Another 
reason may be found, perhaps, in the typical office which Mary 
fulfilled at that time, which will be explained hereafter. For 
these purposes it was necessary that her mind should not be 
discomposed by fear, or by any such strong emotions as would 
disqualify her for tranquil and exact observation. 

John xx. 14. "And when she had thus said, she turned 
herself back, and saw Jesus standing, and knew not that it was 
Jesus." 

Naturally would Mary withdraw from the sepulchre on seeing 
two men within it. If her purpose was, when she stooped, to 
enter it, she would postpone it until the men, as she took them 
to be, had withdrawn. She turned, perhaps with the intention 
of retiring, till they should withdraw, to some place out of 
view. Some commentators understand the words (idrpacpr] d<; 
za oncaa)) of the Evangelist as signifying that she left the 
sepulchre, and was on her way returning to the city. We see 
no occasion for this interpretation. The narrative, which is 
very circumstantial, seems rather to imply, that at the instant 
of rising from her stooping posture, and averting her face from 
the sepulchre, she saw the Lord standing near her, as it were, 
before the door of the sepulchre, within her reach, and in the 
view, perhaps, of the persons within the sepulchre. 

John xx. 15. "Jesus said unto her: Woman, why weepest 
thou? Whom seekest thou?" 

The first of these inquiries is the same as that just before 
made by the angels. Yet neither question was put for infor- 
mation, but rather as a proof to Mary of the reality of his 
bodily presence. It is not necessary to say that he needed not 
that she should tell him why she wept, or whom she sought. 
His voice, his appearance, and perhaps the place, suggested to 
her that he was the gardener, and she replied in continuation 
of her answer to the angels, which she took it for granted he 
had heard. 

John xx. 15. "If thou hast borne him hence, tell me where 
thou hast laid him, and I will take him away." 

"And if thou (art the person who) bore him (that is his dead 
body) hence," &c. This language is perfectly natural, and just 
such as would be suggested by the circumstances; and so was 
the grief which lavished itself on the inanimate remains of her 
departed friend. Yet these did not constitute the Lord's per- 
son. Luke xxiii. 43. But how remote from her mind — we 
repeat — was the thought of his resurrection from the dead! 
We cannot account for Mary's mistake, but by supposing that 



JESUS MAKES HIMSELF KXOWN TO MARY. 471 

our Lord's address to her — his appearance, voice, and manner, 
were perfectly in keeping with one who might be supposed to 
have the care of the garden, though it is not necessary to sup- 
pose that he bore about his person any badge or indication of 
that employment. The place where he appeared, and his 
familiar demeanour gave rise, perhaps, to the conjecture. 
Here we may remark, that a perfect power over the external 
form appears to be a distinguishing attribute of spiritual 
natures. We have seen examples of it in the angels who 
appeared on this eventful morning, and we now have another 
example of it in the person of Jesus.* 

John xx. 16. "Jesus saith unto her, Mary: She turned 
herself and said uuto him, Rabboni, which is to say, Master," 
[rather, "my master!"] "it is my master!"! 

On seeing the angels within the sepulchre, Mary turned from 
it, and in so doing she perceived Jesus, obliquely — or as we may 
say — over her shoulder. In this half-averted posture he first 
addressed her and she replied. But upon hearing her name 
pronounced {pTpoupetaa) turning yet more, so as to survey his 
person, instantly she recognized him. How great was her sur- 
prise ! One word was all that she said, or could say. Her 
highest hope and most intense desire, at that very moment, 
was to find the dead body of her friend. The bitterness of 
her grief she had just vented in his ear whom she sought for as 
dead. She had found him, not dead, as she hoped, but alive, 
which she had not thought of as possible. 

Some commentators suppose that our Lord at first assumed 
the tones of a strange voice, but afterwards changed them to 
his own. We suppose that it was through his power over the 
mind and spirit of Mary that he made himself known to her. 
Her conviction of the reality of his presence and of the iclen- 

* We have sometimes thought our Lord tacitly alluded to this power in his 
discourse on the Mount, Matt, vi. 25, 27 ; Luke xii. 22, 27, " Take no thought 
for your life," "nor yet for your body, for which of you (/uttft/uvm, though 
earnestly and anxiously desiring it,) can add one cubit to his stature;" as if he 
had said, Why bestow so much care and anxiety upon such frail and imperfect 
structures as your mortal bodies are, which are so little under the control of 
your spiritual and nobler natures? Seek rather an entrance into the kingdom 
of God, where you will be endowed with immortal and glorious bodies, which 
will be so perfectly subject to your spiritual natures that you will have power, 
simply by taking thought, to assume any form and stature, and appear and 
disappear in any part of the universe, as the service of God may require. 

t yz*} Rabban Princeps was the highest title of a Jewish teacher. Buxtorf 

(see the word in his Lex. Talmud, fol. col. 2176,) says: "Titulus sumniae dig- 
nitatis circa tempora nati Christi, ortus in Hillelis filiis qui principatum ges- 
serunt, in populo Israelis per ducentos circiter annos. Septem tantum hoc 
titulo appellati fuere qui prater doctrinam et prudentiam etiam fuerunt 
tjijfc'MBa principes et hujus status respectu appellati fuere singuli Rabban." 



472 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

tity of his person appears to have been instantly full and per- 
fect, just as it was eight days afterwards in the case of Thomas, 
verse 28. This power is an attribute with which he will endow 
the renewed nature of all his people when they shall be 
changed into his likeness. 

Although Mary uttered only one word at this interview, yet 
it is supposed she approached him as if to touch his person, or 
that she fell at his feet, as if to embrace them, which gave occa- 
sion to the first part of our Lord's reply, " Touch me not." 
Why should he forbid her to touch him unless she were attempt- 
ing to do so ? We might admit the conjecture as plausible, or 
at least as harmless, were it not made the ground of inter- 
preting the rest of the sentence. If the sense of the passage 
depended upon such an action of Mary, we cannot suppose it 
would have been passed over in silence. We prefer to con- 
sider the record, as designed to convey important instruction to 
the Church, 2 Tim. iii. 16, rather than to denote a fugitive 
circumstance personal to Mary and her fellow disciples. 

John xx. 17. " Jesus saith unto her [paj poo aizzoo) touch 
me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father (ootvo) yap 
dvapsftyxa npo<; top narspa poo.) 

Most commentators say this is a very dark and difficult pas- 
sage, and some say it is the most difficult in the history of the 
resurrection; yet it would be impossible to find a passage more 
easy to be understood, if we take the words in their literal 
sense. It is only when we adopt the common prejudice of a 
single ascension at the end of forty days that we feel obliged 
to depart from the plain sense of the words, " Touch me not, 
because I have not yet ascended to my Father," — implying, 
that if he had ascended, she might touch his person. The 
difficulty is to reconcile this sense with the fact that a short 
time afterwards he allowed the women whom he met returning 
from the sepulchre to the city, to hold him by the feet. Yet 
the common belief is, he had not ascended at that time, and did 
not ascend until he had given his disciples many infallible 
proofs of his resurrection, by means of the touch, as well as 
the senses of sight and hearing. Luke xxiv. 39 ; John xx. 25 ; 
Acts i. 3; x. 41. 

This difficulty is generally got rid of, by rejecting the literal 
sense, and substituting another which the words do not natu- 
rally bear. Thus : Cling not to me : spend no more time with 
me in joyful gratulations : For I am not going to ascend imme- 
diately : Non statim ascendo — adhuc versor in terris. You will 
have many opportunities of seeing me again. Therefore, go 
now to my brethren without delay, and tell them (dvaftwvw) 



THE HIGH PRIEST A TYPE OF CHRIST. 473 

that I shall ascend, depart (that is, after forty days) to my 
Father and your Father ; to my God and your God, 

This paraphrase converts the perfect and present tenses of 
dvaftatvo) into the future, and assigns to (d-TO/icu) the word 
touch, a sense which it doe's not elsewhere bear.* It is remarka- 
ble how very generally the commentators agree in rejecting the 
literal sense. Yet we believe the literal sense, as expressed 
in the authorized English version, gives the true reason of 
the prohibition; "Because I have not yet ascended to my 
Father." 

The high priest under the Levitical economy was a type 
of Christ. He only, of all the priests, went into the holiest 
place once a year, and then not without blood. Levit. xvi. 3; 
Exod. xxx. 10; Heb. ix. 7, 12. No person was permitted to 
be with him in the tabernacle of the congregation! on the great 
day of expiation. Preparatory to the solemnities of that day, 
the high priest was removed from his house and family during 
seven days, lest he should contract a defilement which would 
disqualify him for the solemn occasion. On the day of atone- 
ment, he purified himself with water, before he entered on his 
duties, Levit. xvi. 4; and one reason why no person was 
permitted to be with him in the tabernacle at that time was, it 
is probable, to prevent the possibility of ceremonial or actual 
pollution, by even the slightest touch of any of the people on 
whose behalf he was acting. See Brown s Antiquities, vol. i., 543. 

Now the whole of this ceremonial was typical of the sacri- 
ficial work of the Lord Jesus; and when he appeared to Mary, 
he was, so to speak, midway in the act of making that atone- 
ment which the Levitical ceremonial and the high priest 
prefigured. He, the priest and the victim, had been slain — his 
blood shed, but he had not yet entered the holy place, Heb. 
ix. 11, 12, that is, the Upper Sanctuary of which the earthly 
was a type — or, using his own words — he had not yet ascended 
to the Father, but at that very moment was on the point of 
doing so. No person, therefore, could intercept, or even touch 
his person at that time. Hence, as we suppose, the prohibition, 

* See Canne, Brown, Blaney, Scott, Townsend, Chandler, Clarke, Diodati, 
Jansenius, Bengel, Lamy, Chemnitz, Gottfried Less., G-lassius, Vigerus de 
Idiom. Gr. L. And, for the use of anr;y.sLt in the New Testament, see Matt, 
viii. 3, 15; ix. 20, 21, 29; xiv. 36; xvii. 7; xx. 34. Mark i. 41; iii. 10; v. 
27, 28, 30, 31; vi. 56; vii. 33; viii. 22. Luke v. 13; vi. 19; vii 14, 39; 
viii. 44, 45, 46, 47; xviii. 15; xxii. 51. Gottf. Less, cites Luke xviii. 15 and 
1 John v. 18 to prove that a7rrcjuLAi may signify to embrace or take violent hold 
of. But such constructions are not only unnecessary in those places, hut 
very harsh. 

f Some have suggested the expression, "tent of meeting," that is between 
God and man, instead of Tabernacle of the Congregation. See Exod. xxix. 42, 
43 ; xxv. 8 ; Rev. xxi. 3 
60 



474 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

"Touch me not." The type must be fulfilled in all points, and 
in this as well as others. 

But why, it may be inquired, did he thus show himself to 
Mary, and to her only ? Why was not John or Peter or Mary 
his mother, favoured with this first view of his risen person ? 
Or what necessity was there that he should appear to any 
of his disciples before his ascension ? It is difficult, perhaps 
quite impossible, to answer such questions with confidence, 
except by saying, that such was his sovereign pleasure. Yet, if 
we may be allowed to conjecture, there was a typical necessity 
for the selection of some person, and a typical propriety or 
exigency was fufillled by the selection of this female. Our 
Lord was manifested in the flesh, that he might destroy the 
works of the devil. 1 John iii. 8. This woman is spoken of 
in Luke viii. 2, as having been, in a peculiar manner, the 
victim of Satanic power, whom the Lord had not only delivered 
from a cruel bondage, but had made an eminent example 
of his grace. It is remarkable that the Evangelists, in 
speaking of her, always for some cause, distinguish her from 
the rest. Thus Luke, in the place just cited, viii. 2, mentions 
several females, but Mary Magdalen only by name. Matthew 
xxvii. 56, mentions many others, but Mary Magdalen, and 
Mary the mother of James and Joses, only by name. So 
Luke xxiv. 10 — though he names two others, mentions Mary 
Magdalen first. No cause is assigned for the distinction, 
yet it is evident it was made and recognized during our Lord's 
ministry, and with his approval. It is confirmatory of this 
view, that he should appear first of all to her upon the 
morning of his resurrection, although so many other females 
had been at the sepulchre: and the question to be resolved 
is, why was this last, this crowning distinction bestowed 
upon her ? 

She was a fit representative, as Barabbas was, of those 
whom the Lord came to redeem. But with this further dis- 
tinction — Barabbas was the representative of those still in 
bondage to Satan; but Mary, of those delivered therefrom 
through the Divine power and grace of the Saviour. In other 
words : She was chosen to represent, as it were, at the altar of 
the great atonement, the true Israel, or the elect people of 
God; who, like her, will all be delivered from the bondage of 
Satan and transformed, while living in the flesh, into his friends 
and followers: although, like her, they will still be impure and 
their touch defiling, by reason of their sinful natures, until their 
bodies shall be transformed by his Almighty power into con- 
formity with his likeness. 

But why should he exhibit himself to such a representative, 



MARY A REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTER. 475 

before he entered the sanctuary above ? This is another question 
equally difficult to resolve. Yet may we not suggest, that as 
the people of Israel during the Levitical economy and the taber- 
nacle service, stood assembled without the outer tabernacle, and 
the high priest was not altogether hidden from their view, until 
he entered within {xaramraapLo) the inner veil; so Mary was 
brought to this place at the moment of the passing of our great 
High Priest within the veil, i. e. his ascension to the Father, 
that she might, in this respect also, fulfil the import of the typi- 
cal tabernacle service. 

Having thus exhibited himself to Mary Magdalen first of all, 
as Mark xvi. 9* expressly informs us, he gave her a message to 
his brethren, quite different from that he soon afterwards gave 
the women returning from the sepulchre. Matt, xxviii. 10. 

John xx. 17. "Go to my brethren, and say to them, I 
ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your 

To the company of women he said nothing of his ascension 
to the Father, but simply, " Go tell my brethren, that they go 
into Galilee, there shall they see me." If his ascension to the 
Father were to follow his appearance in Galilee, why send this 
message to them before going thither? Why send it at all? 
Why did he not communicate it to them in person ? If he were 
not to ascend till after forty days, he would have frequent op- 
portunities of communicating this fact to them. We submit to 
the judgment of the reader whether this message should not 
be explained by John xvi. 28; xiii. 31; xiv. 2, 3, 12; 
xvi. 5, 7, and similar passages. In his farewell discourse, he 
had assured them of his speedy departure from the world to the 
Father, and explained to them, as far as they were capable of 
understanding him, the great benefits which this event would 
bring them. He now sends them word by Mary, that he was 
on the point of executing that purpose. Hence, when they 
should afterwards see him in Galilee, or elsewhere, they were to 
regard him, not as an inhabitant of the earth, but as come 
again to them from the Father, and who would at length come 
to receive them to himself to abide for ever with him. John 



* " 'E<|>*v». — In the History of the Resurrection this word is erroneously 
translated 'appearance.' An expression which in the German leads to a gross 
and dangerous mistake, viz., that Jesus never showed himself, but suddenly 
and with a rustling sound, such as superstition imagines a spectre to cause. 
This is by no means the meaning of the Evangelist; for the word i<p&vn is also 
used of the presentation of one with whom we are intimate and in whose so- 
ciety we have long participated: e.g. Matt. vi. 5, 16, 18; also xiii. 26. Be- 
sides, we know from Acts i. 3, 4, that the friends of Jesus enjoyed as intimate 
communion with him after his resurrection as before his death." — Less on the 
Resurrection. 



476 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

xiv. 2, 3; xvi. 16, In accordance with this idea, he spoke of 
himself in his first interview with the apostles the same evening, 
as being no longer with them in his earthly relations — as of one 
belonging to another world. Luke xxiv. 44. This gracious 
message, then, served to denote the moment at which his earthly 
ministry was completed, just as the rending of the veil denoted 
the end of the Levitical economy. Accordingly, we suppose 
that having given it, the Lord instantly disappeared from the 
view of Mary and appeared in the presence of the Father. The 
Evangelist does not expressly say so — nor was it necessary, if 
the design were such as we have supposed; because it. might be 
left to be inferred by the reader.* 

John xx. 18. " Mary Magdalen came [went] and told the 
disciples that she had seen the Lord and he had spoken these 
things unto her." 

It does not appear that Mary met with any of her female 
companions after she left them early in the morning at the 
sepulchre to go in search of John and Peter. It is not pro- 
bable she remained long at the sepulchre after the Lord dis- 
appeared from her view. Peter and John had left the place 
not long before, and perhaps were still on their way return- 
ing to their home. It would be natural to suppose that she 
hastened as she did before in search of them, to communicate 
the joyful news and correct the false impression she had made 
by her too hasty conjecture; which, nevertheless, had been 
confirmed by their own observations. Whether she overtook 
them, or where or to whom she first delivered the Saviour's 
message, we are not informed. We have reason to suppose, 

* Chancellor D'Aguesseau, born at Limoges, France, Nov. 27th, 1668, one of 
the most illustrious men of the age in which he lived, makes the following reflec- 
tions on this passage: "Un Dieu se faisant homme, a fait les hommes Dieux. 
II s'est abaisse vers nous pour nous elever jusqu'& lui et etablir par 1& — toute 
proportion gardee — une espece d'egalite entre lui et nous. (See Notes on John 
xvii. 20 — 24, where this idea is developed.) C'est pour cela, que dans le m6me 
endroit il appelle les apdtres ses freres — propter quam causam non confunditur 
eosfratres vocare (Heb. ii. 11) dit St. Paul. II accomplit ainsi et des ce moment 
la prophetie de David. Narrabo nomen tuum fratribus meis. Y a-t-il rien de 
plus consolant pour les Chretiens, que d'apprendre qu'ils ont un m6me Dieu et 
un meme pere que Jesus-Christ, et qu'ils sont ses freres : C'est un effet de la 
bonte extreme et toute divine du fils de Dieu d'appeller ainsi, dans l'etat de sa 
puissance ceux meme, qui l'avoient abandonne dans les jours de son humilia- 
tion et de ses souffrances. Les Divines Ecritures, retentissent par tout de cette 
verite consolante. St. Paul nous fait souvenir dans toutes ses epitres, non seule- 
ment que nous sommes les heritiers d'un Dieu vivant dans le ciel afin de mepri- 
ser les choses de la terre, mais encore, que nous sommes les co-heritiers d'un 
Dieu mort en croix afin de ne pas refuser de mourir avec lui sur la ndtre. Ipse 
spiritus testimonium reddit spiritui nostro quod sumus filii Dei. Si autem filii et 
hceredes ; hceredes quidem Dei, cohceredes autem Christi. Quelle religion, quelle 
philosophic a jamais enseigne une doctrine, si sublime, si glorieuse, si precieuse 
pour l'homme ?" 



MARY COMMUNICATES WITH THE DISCIPLES. 477 

however that Cleopas and his companion had not heard it when 
they set out for Emmaus : for they spoke only of the appear- 
ance of the angels to the other women. Luke xxiv. 22, 23. 
Hence we infer that the Lord's appearance to Mary was not 
known to them, nor generally known so early as the appear- 
ance of the angels to the women of whom Luke speaks, although 
it might have been known to Peter and John even before they 
heard of the appearance of the angels. For the Evangelists 
abridge all these various communications into general expres- 
sions, without noticing the particulars. We are at liberty 
therefore to apply them as other circumstances require. 

We cannot leave this passage without saying that notwith- 
standing the indefiniteness of this portion of John's Gospel in 
respect to some particulars, there is an air of truthfulness about 
it, that cannot escape the observation of any one accustomed 
to consider and weigh the probabilities of history. We feel 
that the narrative cannot be a fiction — it is so circumstantial, 
so natural, even life-like : so consistent in all its parts, so con- 
sonant with the characters of these three disciples, that we want 
no higher or clearer internal marks of truth. Read verses 
3 and 4 — 6 and 8 ; how minute the particulars ! Again : Read 
verses 5 and 6; how consistent with what we know of the 
characters of Peter and John ! Now read verses 14 and 15 ; 
what more natural? The two apostles saw nothing either of 
the angels or of the Lord. This is confessed. The solitary 
witness of this wonder was a lone woman, whose excited feelings 
or heated imagination skeptics would say misled her. Yet they 
name her as the witness ! Would a deceiver thus write ? We 
think it quite impossible. 

Mark, to whom we now turn, is a little more particular in 
some respects than John, although his account also is very 
general. He says: 

Mark xvi. 10, 11. "She [Mary Magdalen] went and told 
them that had been with him, as they mourned and wept, and 
they, when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by 
her, believed not." 

If we turn to Luke xxiv. 10, we observe that he joins Mary 
Magdalen with Joanna and Mary the mother of James, and 
other women as the bearers of this news, without distinction of 
times or places. His object was, as has been observed, to say 
once for all, and in general terms, that the apostles received 
information of the occurrences at the sepulchre from the women. 
He does not therefore contradict John or Mark.* 



* Some commentators suppose that Luke should be understood as saying, 
that Mary Magdalen and her company conveyed the information before the 



478 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

It is not probable, Mark intends to include among the num- 
ber of persons he refers to, the women who had been at the 
sepulchre and had seen the angels and heard from them of the 
Lord's resurrection. These would not be likely to discredit 
Mary's words: besides, the unmingled sorrow in which Mary 
found those of whom he speaks, shows that they had not yet 
received any intimation of the joyful event. It is probable, 
therefore, that Mark does not include Peter or John in the 
number. But if, as we have supposed probable, Mary hastened 
first after Peter and John and told them, and afterwards others, 
we see why John should not add as Mark does, "they believed 
not," because it is probable John did believe, or if not, that 
both he and Peter were prepared by what they had seen, to 
give credit to her words. Accordingly on hearing this second 
communication of Mary, as we suppose, 

Luke xxiv. 12. "Peter arose and ran" again "to the sepul- 
chre, and stooping down he beheld the linen clothes laid by 
themselves," as he had seen them before, "and departed won- 
dering in himself at that which was come to pass." 

Some commentators suppose that Luke here refers to the 
visit which Peter made to the sepulchre in company with John. 
John xx. 3. Others maintain that Peter made two visits to the 
sepulchre that morning — the first in company with John, and 
the other alone. The question cannot be determined with cer- 
tainty. We incline to the latter opinion.* 

On this assumption, we conclude that Luke refers to the visit 
of Peter, which was generally best known, and that John, 
writing at a later period, and intending to supplement Luke, 
relates an earlier visit, when he was Peter's companion. From 
what we know of Peter's character, there is nothing incredible 
in the supposition that Mary's account of the appearance of 
the Lord to her should determine him instantly to make a 
second visit. It was just like him to do so. We add; it is 

other women; at least that some of them did so, to some of the apostles. 
Hence they translate the aorist \\ryw, verse 10, as a pluperfect, and the whole 
verse somewhat in this way: "But there were others who had already told 
these things to the apostles, namely, Mary Magdalen, Joanna, Mary the 
mother of James, and other women who were with them." That is to say, 
these women had conveyed the information they possessed to the apostles, or 
some of them, before those Galilean women, spoken of in the preceding con- 
text, returned from the sepulchre to the city. See notes on Matt, xxviii. 2. 

* Some regard this verse in Luke as an interpolation made from John's 
Gospel. They say it is not contained in some of the most authoritative MSS. 
The language is similar, and looks, it is said, as though it had been copied 
from John. But there is nothing incredible in the fact that similar words should 
be employed, even by different writers,. to express the same ideas, nor in the 
supposition that Peter made two visits. Besides, no part of the commonly 
received text ought to be rejected, except upon the most convincing evidence 
of spuriousness. 



MARY AND HER COMPANIONS WORSHIP JESUS. 479 

not improbable that the Lord appeared to Peter on this second 
visit, either when he was alone at the sepulchre or on his return 
from it. When should we anticipate such a gracious manifesta- 
tion to Peter alone, if not on such an occasion ? Luke, it is 
true, does not mention the fact in connection with the visit of 
which he speaks.* The interview was secret' and mysterious, 
and the Holy Spirit has cast a veil over it. Only incidentally 
it is mentioned, as an isolated fact, by Luke and Paul. Luke 
xxiv. 34; 1 Cor. xv. 5. 

The Lord having appeared to Mary Magdalen, appeared 
again soon after to Mary the mother of James and her com- 
panions, on their return to the city. It is probable both were 
proceeding to the city at the same time, though not in com- 
pany; and, if we follow the order of Luke's narrative, both 
came to the apostles before Peter arose to make his second visit 
to the sepulchre. As some harmonists suppose, however, Mary 
Magdalen first came to the apostles, or some of them ; then 
the Galilean women, of whom Luke speaks, arrived; and soon 
after them, Mary the mother of James and her party. We 
return now to 

Matt, xxviii. 9, 10. "And as they [that is, Mary the 
mother of James and her companions] went to tell his disciples, 
behold, Jesus met them, saying, All hail. And they came and 
held him by the feet and worshipped him. Then said Jesus 
unto them : Be not afraid. Go tell my brethren, that they go 
into Galilee. There shall they see me." 

According to Mark, the angel whom they had seen at the 
sepulchre bade them tell the same thing to the disciples, and 
particularly to Peter. Mark xvi. 7. 

This especial reference to Peter, if the message were given 
to him at the time we have supposed, would naturally embolden 
as well as encourage him to seek an interview with the Lord, 
even before going to Galilee. But without dwelling on this 
point, which cannot be determined with certainty, we pass to 
notice how entirely the manner and address of the Saviour dis- 
pelled the fears of these women, and the full and confident 
belief they had of the reality of his person. How different 
were the emotions of the apostles, when, on the evening of 

* We notice a similar omission in Luke i. 20. He there tells us only that 
Zacharias was punished for his incredulity with dumbness. And yet it is plain 
from verse 62 that he was deprived of hearing also : a fact brought in inciden- 
tally, out of place, to complete the narrative. The English reader, however, 
should be informed that the word (xaxpo?) translated speechless in verse 22, pro- 
perly signifies deaf as well as dumb; so that this supplementary fact is sup- 
plied earlier than would be supposed from our translation. This is an instance 
in which Luther and the translators of the authorized version have been unduly 
influenced by the Latin Vulgate, which renders ko><?o$ by mutus. 



480 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

that day, shortly after the return of Cleopas and his companion 
from Emmaus, Jesus appeared in the midst of them. Luke 
xxiv. 36, 37, 41. We account for the difference by the manner 
in which he made his appearance. In the case of these women, 
he approached them as a stranger might do, who chanced to be 
walking the same way. By his salutation simply he makes 
himself perfectly known to them. They fall at his feet, wor- 
shipping, and embraced them, which he now permits. They 
feel no doubt of the reality and the identity of nis person. He 
gives them no other proof, and disappears from their view, but 
how soon, or in what manner, as in the case of his appearance 
to Mary, we are not informed. 

We have already remarked upon the difference between the 
messages he sent to his brethren by Mary Magdalen and by 
these women: the one related to his ascension to the Father, 
the other to his appearance in Galilee. Why did he not send 
the same message to his brethren by these women as he had by 
Mary Magdalen? The reason we suggest is, that he had in 
the meantime ascended to the Father, and fulfilled the typical 
import of the entering of the High Priest within the veil. See 
notes on John xx. 17. 

It is commonly taken for granted that our Lord's first 
ascension into heaven was that particularly described in Acts 
i. 9, after having been seen by his disciples forty days. Yet 
on the evening of the day he arose he spoke of himself as no 
longer a proper inhabitant of the earth in his human person. 
Luke xxiv 44. Nor can it be denied that he appeared and 
disappeared-, from time to time, under such circumstances as 
were wholly new and strange, and in no way agreeable to the 
state of his body and behaviour while he was truly and properly 
an inhabitant of the earth. Hence we may infer that he was 
during that period ordinarily an inhabitant of the heavenly 
world. Eph. iii. 20. During the ancient economy, though not 
then incarnate, he frequently appeared, as the Angel Jehovah, 
in a visible form, to patriarchs and other holy men ; much in 
the same way he appeared during these forty days to his 
disciples. And why should his ascension be delayed for the 
purpose of exhibiting his risen body to his disciples? Acts 
x. 40, 41. Why could he not appear to them from heaven as 
he afterwards did to Paul ? Is there any text which proves 
that his risen body was locally confined to the earth during all 
this time? The question can be resolved only by the testimony 
of the sacred writers. 

We have already considered the reason why our Lord 
forbade Mary to touch his person. As it seems to us, the 
words of our Lord are not intelligible except upon the sup- 



THE WATCH COMMUNICATE WITH THE HIGH PRIESTS. 481 

position that he then was about to ascend to the Father, 
■which Paul explains, Heb. ix. 24, ascending into heaven itself. 
But whether this means that he ascended far above all heavens, 
Eph. iv. 10, or that he passed through all heavens, Heb. iv. 14, 
or that he ascended higher than the heavens, Heb. vii. 26, are 
questions into which we need not inquire. We know not where 
the place denoted by the Saviour's words may be, nor do we 
suppose that the proper interpretation of them depends upon 
any such considerations. 

Yet it is probable that inadequate and even low conceptions 
of the Saviour's power, have had a determining influence upon 
commentators in interpreting these words. Insensibly we are 
influenced by the idea of difliculty and distance, as though it 
would require effort and time for the risen Saviour to ascend 
to and return from the Father. Such impressions are erro- 
neous, and would not be entertained a moment if we could con- 
ceive adequately of the attributes with which our Lord invested 
his risen human body. We know that it is the most wonderful, 
the most perfect work of his almighty power and infinite skill 
— the tabernacle of his omnipotence. It is neither unreason- 
able nor unscriptural to believe that he who gave to the light 
its velocity, and to the lightning its power, would impart to his 
risen and regenerated human body, power transcending im- 
measurably all the powers of created natures, so as to make it 
the fit instrument of his infinite purposes. To him the uni- 
verse, vast beyond our conceptions as it is, lies open to 
his view, and is accessible at his will. Its remotest extremes 
are to him like adjacent apartments in the Father's house. 
John xiv. 2; Heb. iii. 4; John xvi. 28; iii. 13; Prov. xxx. 4. 
Who that believes in the Divine nature of the Lord Jesus can 
doubt his power to appear at any moment in any part of the 
universe he governs ? To ascend to the Father, to enter into 
the upper sanctuary, within the veil, into heaven itself, required 
of him, not effort, not time, but only the will to do it. To 
return from thence to the women, as they were going from 
the sepulchre to the city, was no more to him than to pass 
from the garden of Joseph to the place where he met them. 
We now proceed to another testimony, recorded only by 
Matthew; we mean the testimony of the watch, or military 
guard, to the high priests. 

About the time the first party of women returned, or it may 
be, while they were on their way, 

Matt, xxviii. 11. " Some of the watch going into the city, 
showed to the high priests all things that were done." 

How many persons composed the watch we are not informed, 
nor do we know how many of their number went to the high 
61 



482 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

priests. The Evangelist's words would be made good if only 
those of the watch went who were in command. They went 
only to the chief priests, Annas and Caiaphas, (probably to the 
palace,) and communicated to them the things which had 
occurred. At what time they went is not stated, but we may 
reasonably infer that it was after sunrise. Where the watch 
remained during the interval is an inquiry which we cannot 
resolve. These minute particulars are not important, and for 
that reason have not been recorded. Nor do we know the 
especial matter of their communication. While, on the one 
hand, the terrors of the scene had bereft them of the power 
of minute observation, they were by the same cause most 
thoroughly convinced of the presence of Divine power, and 
able to exculpate themselves from all blame. The emergency 
required prompt action. Accordingly, 

Matt, xxviii. 12 — 14. "They [viz. the high priests] as- 
sembled with the elders, and having consulted together, gave 
the soldiers large money." 

The body which was thus convened, composed the Sanhedrim 
or Council of Seventy, established by Moses. The same body 
is referred to in Matt. xxvi. 5.* It is not improbable the sol- 
diers repeated before the assembled council the account they 
had given to the chief priests, and were then dismissed to allow 
an opportunity for private consultation. Obviously, the mea- 
sure proposed, in order to be effectual, must have embraced all 
the soldiers employed on that duty ; otherwise, no concert in 
their falsehood could have been expected, nor any sufficient 
inducement to suppress the truth. Yet the details of this pro- 
ceeding are wholly omitted. We only know the result of their 
consultation and the measures they adopted. 

Matt, xxviii. 13. "Saying: Say ye his disciples came by 
night and stole him while we slept." 

" Say ye" — to whom ? — to Pilate the governor ? The severity 
of the military discipline of the Romans renders the supposition 
exceedingly improbable. We can scarcely believe the soldiers 
would voluntarily say to their commander that they slept on 
their post and allowed the body to be stolen which they had 
been set to guard. Even if Pilate did not regard the service 
as an important one, he would, nevertheless, regard their neglect 
of it a serious breach of duty, severely punishable. The mean- 
ing of the priests, as we infer from the two verses following, 
was that the soldiers should give this out to the people — the 

* The word (srvv^Ssvrs?) assembled may be construed in connection with the 
word (<nv#) some of the watch. The original is somewhat indefinite, and 
indeed is not grammatically exact, yet such language as an uncultivated writer 
would very naturally employ. 



THE SOLDIERS BRIBED. 483 

Jewish public at Jerusalem. But how? By a direct and bold 
avowal of their own delinquency? Such an avowal, perhaps, 
would not have accomplished the object so certainly as an indi- 
rect method. We suppose they were rather to hint it from 
time to time as opportunity occurred, so as to give occasion 
of suspicion against themselves rather than to be open self- 
accusers. In this way a rumour among the people would be 
excited, which might come to the hearing of Pilate. The art- 
fulness of the priests consisted, in the judgment of some com- 
mentators, not so much in the invention of the falsehood as in 
their contrivance for its diffusion ; while others, not perceiving 
this, find nothing but a gross inconsistency in the report itself, 
which stamps it as a palpable falsehood. "Did the soldiers 
sleep? How then could they know the disciples stole the 
body? Did they see the disciples take it away? How then 
could they be asleep?" 

Such an interpretation greatly underrates the malicious inge- 
nuity of the members of the Sanhedrim; so much so, as to 
reflect upon the credibility of the Evangelist. We cannot 
easily believe, that these astute, crafty men, after having 
resolved to propagate a falsehood as the only means of extri- 
cating themselves from discredit with the people, would contrive 
one palpably contradictory in itself. Probably the priests and 
elders in secret council, resolved to fall back on the suggestion 
they made to Pilate, as the reason why he should order a guard 
to be stationed at the sepulchre, Matt, xxvii. 63, 64, and pre- 
tend that what they feared had been realized, notwithstanding 
the precaution Pilate had adopted. In this way they compli- 
mented their own sagacity, as well as maintained consistency. 
Not being there themselves, they could not be supposed to 
know of their own knowledge, whether it was through the wilful 
connivance or negligence of the guard that the mischief hap- 
pened, but they insisted no doubt, that in one or the other way 
it must have happened; the latter supposition might be ad- 
mitted as the most charitable. As for a dead man coming to 
life, and coming out of a sepulchre so securely closed — the idea 
is preposterous ! This, or something of this tenor, the priests 
would very probably say. Then, to guard against any contra- 
dictory statement from the soldiers, they bribed them to let the 
affair take the course suggested, rather favouring it by inuendoes 
and a suppression of the truth. Thus arranged, the rulers on 
the one hand might say, "What we foresaw and forewarned the 
governor against, and earnestly besought him to prevent, not- 
withstanding all our pains, actually occurred. His disciples 
came by night and stole the body away : a thing which could 
not have happened if the guard had been faithful. How it 



484: NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

happened they best know. The most charitable supposition is, 
that they fell asleep, and the disciples, watching their oppor- 
tunity, opened the sepulchre and purloined the body." 

The soldiers played their part in the deception, as we may 
suppose, not by denying, but by ambiguous conduct, rather 
confirming the bold assertions of the priests and rulers. How 
easy, how natural was it for them to say, confidentially 
to some friend, that not supposing any person would dare to 
come to a place thus guarded at the dead hour of the night, 
and believing that the apprehension of any attempt to steal 
the body was quite preposterous, they were not so watchful 
as perhaps they ought to have been; and, in fact, that drowsi- 
ness might have overtaken them while each depended on the 
vigilance of the others, and while they were in that condition 
the disciples might have taken the body without their knowing 
it. An explanation of this sort, made in confidence, would 
almost certainly be repeated, with additions at each repetition, 
till it would pass from mouth to mouth among the common 
people as a positive fact. It requires but little observation of 
human nature, to perceive how an effect of this kind could be 
accomplished. The tendency of the popular mind to ex- 
aggerate and falsify even true accounts is proverbial. To this 
natural disposition or vice of the human heart the priests and 
rulers appealed, as we suppose, substantially, if not circum- 
stantially, in the way suggested, in order to extricate them- 
selves from the serious difficulty in which the truth would 
have involved them. The contrivance answered the purpose, 
for the time, of parrying the shock which the unvarnished 
truth would have made on the public. Yet, if we reflect but a 
little on the circumstances, the extreme improbability, if not 
impossibility of the report, will be apparent. How improbable 
it is that all the soldiers, were there only three of them, should 
have been asleep at the same time, and so profoundly that 
neither of them should have been awakened by the noise made 
by the rolling away of the large stone — the bringing forth of 
the body after liberating it from the bandages in which it was 
wrapped up ! Again, only a few hours before, all the disciples 
had fled through fear, glad to escape with their lives. They 
convened secretly with closed doors, as companions in sorrow 
and misfortune, but so far as we know, for no other reason. 
They had given up all hope in Jesus as Messiah. They had 
even embalmed his body to preserve it a little while from cor- 
ruption, and others, not knowing that it had been done, pre- 
pared spices, and came to the sepulchre to do it. 

Again, if we contrast the conduct of the apostles and that 
of their rulers during the three days just closed, with their 



PROMISES OP PROTECTION TO THE SOLDIERS. 485 

conduct, respectively, on the day of Pentecost and the days 
following it, we shall find it quite impossible to give credit 
to such a report, even for a moment. For then these timid 
disciples came boldly before the people in the temple, at 
Jerusalem, and in the face of the rulers preached the resur- 
rection of Jesus. They boldly charged them with the murder 
of Jesus, the Holy One, and the Just, and the Prince of 
life. No attempt was made by the priests and rulers to 
disprove their assertion. On the contrary, thousands of the 
common people, and a great many priests, fully believed 
the fact, and joined the apostles. To this proof we shall return 
hereafter. 

Matt, xxviii. 14. " And if this shall come to the governor's 
ears, [rather before the governor,'] we will persuade him and 
secure you." 

This promise was in addition to the gift of money. It proves 
that the soldiers were rather to conceal the matter from the 
governor than to declare it to him. There were chances that 
the governor would not hear it, for he commonly resided at 
Csesarea Palestina ; and if he should not hear it, they would be 
safe ; but if the rumour should reach him, and he should take 
judicial notice of their delinquency, then they promise to per- 
suade, or win him over to their side. What means they intended 
to employ they do not say. It is not to be supposed they would 
be so unwise as to tell the soldiers in plain terms that they 
would (izscdscv* dpyupta) vel y^prjfiaac) bribe him, which was no 
doubt their purpose. They knew the character of Pilate. He 
is represented by contemporary authors as most unjust, avari- 
cious, and venal. He had committed innumerable robberies and 
other acts of flagrant injustice. With him, everything was ac- 
counted right which was profitable to his purse. Nothing could 
be easier than to persuade such a judge and secure the soldiers 
against his displeasure. 

Matt, xxviii. 15. " So they [the soldiers] took the money 
and did as they were taught; and this saying is commonly re- 
ported among the Jews until this clay." 

This Evangelist wrote his Gospel, it is probable, about the 
year a. d. 41. 

Until that time, the report was common among the unbeliev- 
ing Jews of Palestine. He gives us no reason to suppose that 
Pilate, or the Romans, or any Gentile nation ever gave credit 
to it. On the contrary, if we may believe Justin Martyr, 
Afol. II., Tertullian, Apol. cap. v. 21, and Uusebius, lib. ii. 
cap ii., Pilate wrote to Tiberius such an account of the life and 

* A euphemism to express a sinister purpose, or rather to cover it up. 



486 NOTES OX SCRIPTURE. 

miracles of the Lord Jesus Christ that he was willing to have 
the Senate decree Divine honours to him. Eusebius intimates 
that Pilate spoke of his resurrection and ascension. But the 
unbelieving Jews took great pains to spread and perpetuate this 
false report among their own people, as is proved by the writings 
of their Rabbins. The Evangelist does not inform us, in ex- 
press terms, what account the assembled priests and elders 
agreed upon in their meeting, but only upon what they desired 
the soldiers to say. We have conjectured that they fell back 
upon the suspicion they expressed to Pilate, which they may 
have moulded into the story contained in a very blasphemous 
book called Toledoth Jeschu,* the absurdity of which, as it 
seems to those who have the New Testament, appears from the 
fact that it ascribes the theft of the Lord's body to Judas Isca- 
riot, who told it to one of their sages, and by that means they 
discovered the body, after it had been stolen, under the bed of 
a river or stream where it had been secreted. 

But even this story tends to establish the truth of Matthew's 
narrative ; for it admits the fact that the sepulchre, after having 
been thus secured, was found empty. Yet it was quite impossi- 
ble for the friends of Jesus to purloin the body, for the reasons 
already suggested. How, then, can we account for the admitted 
fact except as the Evangelist does? And if he arose from the 
dead, what more probable than that the rulers — his enemies — 
to save their credit with the people, should invent such a fable? 
We now return to the other appearances of the Lord on this 
eventful day. Turning to Mark we find, 

Mark xvi. 12, "that after" his appearance to Mary a he ap- 
peared in another form (iv krspa fJ-opprj) unto two of them as 
they walked and went into the country." 

This is a very brief and general account of an appearance 
which Luke records more at length, which we shall next notice. 
By another form, Mark means a form different from that in 
which he appeared to Mary, or in a form different from that he 
bore during his personal ministry. Mark leaves us to infer that 
these two recognized him, because, he says, they went and told 
it to the residue. But he does not tell us when or how, or what 
passed between them, nor to what place they were going. Some 
commentators suppose the change in his appearance arose from 
the change of his dress ; that there was, in fact, no change in 
his person. Others inquire whether his dress was not visionary, 

* The principal part, if not the whole of this book, is transcribed into Eisen- 
menger's Entdechtes Judenthum, see vol. i. p. 189, and translated into German. 
It is also published in Wagenseil's Tela Ignea Satance. It is said the Jews 
have the custom to read this book in their houses on Christmas eve, in order 
to dishonour Christ and teach their children to blaspheme. 



THE WALK TO EMMAUS. 487 

and if not, how, when, or where he procured it ; whether he 
created it, or received it from an angel ; whether it was the 
dress he wore before he suffered? Such inquiries cannot be 
resolved by the text, nor would they shed light on the way of 
salvation if they could be. In connection with this text we 
now turn to 

Luke xxiy. 13. "And behold two of them went that same 
day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem 
about three-score furlongs." 

Luke here supplies us with some particulars which Mark 
passed over. Cleopas, he says, was one of the two disciples, 
and the place in the country they were going to was Emmaus, 
a village about seven and a half or eight miles distant from 
Jerusalem, situated, as is supposed, at the north-west, say 
about three hours' walk from the city. 

Luke xxiy. 14, 16. "And they talked together of all these 
things which had happened, and it came to pass, while they 
communed and reasoned, Jesus himself drew near and went 
with them ; but their eyes were holden that they should not know 
him." 

This is the first appearance of the Lord mentioned by Luke, 
being the same as the second mentioned by Mark. It was pro- 
bably the fourth. Cleopas, it is supposed, was otherwise called 
Alpheus. He was the husband of Mary, the sister of Mary 
the mother of Jesus, and the father of James the less, Matt. 
x. 3; Luke vi. 15; John xix. 25; and of Joseph or Joses. 
His wife, consequently, was that other Mary who accompanied 
Mary Magdalen early in the morning to the sepulchre. Matt. 
xxviii. 1; xxvii. 56, 61. We have seen that on her return 
from the sepulchre the Lord appeared to her and her com- 
panion, and permitted them to embrace his feet. It is proba- 
ble, therefore, that Cleopas left Jerusalem for Emmaus before 
Mary his wife returned to the city from the sepulchre, or at 
least before he met with her. He shared deeply in the attach- 
ment which she bore to the Saviour. His countenance, verse 
17, showed his sadness, and his conversation the burden of his 
heart, verse 14. Had he felt otherwise, it is not probable he 
would have been thus favoured. 

The topics of their conversation, we may safely infer, were 
those enumerated in verses 19 — 24: Jesus of Xazareth, the 
greatest of the prophets ; the sin and folly of the priests and 
rulers in procuring his crucifixion; their own disappointed 
hopes; the startling report of the women who were early at the 
sepulchre ; the confirmation of it in part by some of their male 
companions. What themes ! 

"W liile they were communing and reasoning, Jesus drew near, 



488 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

in the guise of a stranger, and walked along with them. Mark, 
we have seen, intimates that his form was changed. Luke inti- 
mates that an effect was produced upon their vision. Both 
amount to the same thing, for both describe the cause from the 
effect, which might be produced by the Divine power in many 
ways, but in what way could not be known except by revela- 
tion, which in this matter appears to have been withheld, as not 
important or not proper to be known. But do we inquire why 
on this occasion, and to these disciples only, he exhibited him- 
self in this manner, and why he designedly kept up their illu- 
sion until he disappeared from their view ? Without attempting 
directly to answer these questions, let us advert to the effect 
accomplished by these means. If we read the whole passage, 
verses 15 — 32, we perceive that from the instant of his joining 
them, during the whole journey, until he disappeared from 
them, they were perfectly at ease with him as with an equal. 
Indeed, Cleopas at first seems to assume some superiority, or, at 
least, he seems to be conscious of having the advantage by his 
superior knowledge of current events. "Art thou only a 
stranger in Jerusalem, and yet dost not know the things that 
have come to pass there in these days?" This remark implies 
a degree of surprise that any person should be so ignorant as 
to ask the question he was replying to, even if he were only a 
stranger in Jerusalem. 

Luke xxiv. 19. "And he said unto them, What things?" 
Such a question following upon the remark of Cleopas would 
not only leave undisturbed his impression of his own superior 
information, but call forth a statement of the subjects upon 
which the Lord desired to instruct them. Approaching them, 
then, in this way, he invested the interview with the drapery of 
common life — kept their minds tranquil and open to the instruc- 
tion he intended to impart. Continuing with them through the 
greater part of the way, as we may infer from verse 27 that 
he did, he gave them indubitable proofs of the reality of his 
human person, which were still further confirmed at the end of 
their journey by his partaking of food with them, and after- 
wards by his closing the interview with an act he had often 
performed in their presence, which instantly reminded them of 
his person. Was it possible for them, after such an interview, 
under such circumstances, so long continued and with such 
proofs as they must have had during this long walk of his 
human bodily presence, to doubt whether he was truly a man 
having flesh and bones, or a mere spirit? Their astonishment 
came after the designed impression had been made, and could 
not invalidate the previous conviction of the reality of his 
bodily presence. The effect of a sudden, unlooked-for, miracu- 



ERRONEOUS VIEWS OF CLEOPAS AND HIS COMPANION. 489 

lous appearance would have been very different, as we shall see 
hereafter. 

Luke xxiv. 19. "And they said unto him, Concerning 
Jesus of Nazareth, which was a prophet mighty in word and 
deed before God and all the people." 

Cleopas answered the first question, and perhaps this ques- 
tion also. The answer, however, is ascribed to both; but 
whichever of the two spoke, the record is historically exact.* 

Luke xxiv. 20, 21. "And how the chief priests and our 
rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have cruci- 
fied him. But we trusted that it had been he which should 
have redeemed Israel. And besides all this, to-day is the third 
day since these things were done." 

Observe the mixture of feeling, perhaps we should say, the 
disturbed or unsettled judgment of these attached disciples. 
Evidently they did not know what to think about these un- 
looked-for events. While they held firmly to the belief that he 
was not only a true prophet, but the greatest of the prophets 
that had appeared, he was not in other respects what they took 
him to be. During his ministry they were confident he was 
the promised Messiah, whose mission and office would be the 
redemption of Israel. But in this they supposed they were 
mistaken; and this expectation, however cherished, was cut 
off, so they thought, by an ignominious death. These things 
seemed to prove, that although he was a true and a very great 
prophet, yet he was not the Messiah, the Redeemer of Israel. 
Consequently, the national hope was still longer to be deferred, 
and Israel must yet remain, how long they knew not, in bondage 
to their enemies. But this was not all: 

Luke xxiv. 22, 23. " Certain women also of our company 
made us astonished who were early f at the sepulchre. And 

* While they speak of the Lord Jesus with the greatest respect, it is remark- 
able that they do not give him the higher title which he claimed — Son of God. 
Perhaps they thought it not expedient to allude to such a subject in conversa- 
tion with one whom they took to be a stranger; or perhaps their own views of 
his Divine nature were not, at that time, clearly defined. We observe also a 
common Hebrew circumlocution, to express the superlative degree: "A 
prophet mighty before God," means a most mighty prophet, the greatest of the 
prophets. See other examples in Gen. vi. 11; x. 9. 

f 'OpQpios or cpQptvoc, from op&poc, see verse 1. Tevojutvau cpBpitu is one of thos 
beautiful classic expressions which we every now and then find in the New 
Testament in close connection with the peculiar idioms of Hellenistic Greek; 
as in this verse, where im with the accusative is used for 7rpcs, prope, near by; 
and in the next verse o7nx(rtctv ayytKuv iupzKivzt, which is a Hebrew pleonasm, 
see Glassius; and in general we may say of the Gospels and apostolical writings, 
that the nature of the subjects of which their authors treat, and the state of 
mind in which they write, often beget the most lofty conceptions, and rhetorical 
figures not unworthy of the most polished writers. 

62 



490 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

when they found not his body, they came saying that they had 
also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive." 

We learn from verse 11 how the report affected them. It 
was too incredible to be seriously considered. So, at least, 
some of the apostles thought; yet not all of them. 

Luke xxiv. 24. "For certain of them which were with us 
went to the sepulchre, and found it even so as the women had 
said, but him they saw not." 

That is, they found the stone rolled away — the sepulchre 
open — the body gone, but they saw nothing more. How could 
all these things be reconciled? How could he be the greatest 
of the prophets, and yet not the Messiah? How could he be 
the Messiah and yet be rejected by the chief priests and rulers, 
and even put to death with the consent, nay, upon the demand 
of his own people? John xii. 34. Impossible! And then 
again, how could he die and be laid in the sepulchre until the 
third day, and after that come to life again ? And were that 
possible, how could it prove him to be the Messiah, the Re- 
deemer of Israel ? To these difficulties, especially the last, our 
Lord addressed himself. 

Here we pause for the present ; first suggesting to the reader, 
for his consideration, the question, "In what respects were the 
views of these devoted and faithful disciples of the office and 
work of Christ erroneous or defective?" That they were so in 
some respects is evident from the two following verses, but that 
their error consisted simply or chiefly in their expecting the 
restoration of Israel to the land of the covenant, and their 
deliverance from their bondage to the nations, as many com- 
mentators suppose, is by no means clear. 



CHAPTER XIII. 

Walk to Emmaus. — Prophecies in the books of Moses concerning Christ. — 
Jewish custom. — Recognition of the disciples. — New views of the Prophetic 
Scriptures obtained by them. — The Lord's appearance to Peter. — Universality 
of the belief of the spirit world. — Christ with his disciples as he was with 
Abraham in the plain of Mamre. — The disciples advance in knowledge. — A 
new commission. — Inauguration of the new dispensation. — Powers and gifts 
conferred on the apostles and personal to them at the opening of the new 
dispensation, not transmitted to bishops, elders, &c. in later years. — The 
Ascension. — Offering of divine worship. 

Luke xxiv. 25, 26. "Then he said unto them, fools and 
slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken." 
ye unthinking, inconsiderate men ! How slow ye are to 
comprehend the predictions of the prophets concerning the 



ERRONEOUS VIEWS OF CLEOPAS AND HIS COMPANION. 491 

promised Deliverer of Israel? "Ought not Christ to have 
suffered (jradeev) these things and to enter (xae daeXOew, to have 
entered) into his glory?"* Was it not Divinely appointed, as 
an indispensable part of the plan of redemption, (even of that 
redemption of Israel in the flesh, to which you ignorantly limit 
your expectations and your hopes) that the Christ should suffer 
those very things, which cause your doubts and your sorrows, 
before he should enter into his glory, of which (glory) you have 
very low conceptions ? 

That these disciples, loving and faithful as they were, enter- 
tained very inadequate views of the dignity, office, and work of 
Christ, is conclusively proved by this reply. Yet the Lord had 
frequently warned them, not only in figurative, but in the 
plainest language, that his personal ministry would end in his 
rejection and death, and that his exaltation and glory with the 
Father would follow. See Matt. xvi. 21; xvii. 22; xx. 17—19; 
Mark viii. 31; ix. 31; x. 33; Luke ix. 22; xii. 50; xvii. 
31 — 34; xxiv. 6, 7; Matt. xxvi. 31, 32; John xvii. 5. It is 
worth while to pause a little, and consider how they could thus 
err, and wherein their error lay. The subject is a large one. 
In this connection we can consider only the principal points, 
and those briefly. 

(1.) According to the common apprehension of the Jews of 
our Lord's day, even of the most spiritually-minded and devout, 
the Messiah was to be regarded chiefly as the promised De- 
liverer of Israel from their bondage to the Gentiles. Luke i. 
68 — 75. That there were predictions which justified the 
expectations of such a deliverance, cannot reasonably be 
doubted. 2 Sam. vii. 10—24 ; 1 Chron. xvii. 9—27 ; Isa. i. 
26 ; Jer. xxiii. 5, 6 ; xxxiii. 7 — 15, and 20 — 26 ; Lev. xxvi. 
42; Ps. xcviii. 3; cv. 8, 9; cvi. 44 — 48. The promises made 
to Abraham, literally understood, included the gift of the land 
of Canaan, in which they, a remnant of Israel, then dwelt, 
with which they connected their national redemption and glory. 
See Gen. xiii. 14—17; xv. 18—21; xvii. 5—8; xxvi. 2—4; 
xxviii. 10 — 15; xxii. 16 — 18. The Messiah was the promised 
Prince, through whom these expectations were to be realized. 
He was to be a descendant of David, and his right to the 
throne and the crown of David, they expected, would be 
devolved to him by descent from that monarch, according to 
the covenant God made with him. His dominion and rule, 
when once it should begin, they expected and believed would 
continue without interruption or change for ever. John xiii. 

* Both these verbs are aorist, and may with equal propriety be translated 
by the perfect infinitive. 



492 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

34 ; Ps. lxxxix. 36, 37 ; ex. 4 ; Isa. ix. 7 ; Ezek. xxxvii. 25 ; 
Dan. ii. 44 ; vii. 14 ; Micah iv. 7. They believed, indeed, that 
Messiah's kingdom would be terrestrial, but in no sense limited 
in respect to the time of its duration. Undoubtedly they were 
right in their expectation of such a redemption, if the promises 
made to their fathers might be literally understood. That 
Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, so understood them, 
is plain from his allusion to the oath which God sware unto 
Abraham, Luke i. 73, 74, compare with Gen. xvii. 16, 17, 
" that he would grant unto us, that we, being delivered out of 
the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear in holi- 
ness and righteousness before him all the days of our life?' 
See 2 Sam. vii. 10; 1 Chron. xvii. 9. We may add, that the 
language and conduct of our Lord himself, justified and con- 
firmed this national hope. See Acts i. 6 — 9 ; Luke xix. 
37—44; Mark xi. 9, 10; Matt. xxi. 40; ii. 2, 3; John i. 49, 
50; Luke xxii. 29. 

That there were diversities of expectations and hopes among 
the Jews in regard to the moral character of their nation in its 
restored state, we cannot reasonably doubt. The carnal and 
worldly, it is probable, entertained low views of the holiness 
and purity of the expected kingdom, while the devout, like 
Zacharias, connected with the national deliverance holiness and 
righteousness in a higher degree than the nation had ever ex- 
hibited. Luke i. 75 ; Isa. Ix. 21. 

(2.) Few, if any, of the pious, excepting those who were 
especially taught it by the Holy Spirit, had any conception of 
the means necessary to accomplish this redemption of Israel 
according to the flesh, from their temporary subjection to the 
Gentiles. Like Nicodemus, they thought that Messiah's king- 
dom would be effectually brought nigh to the nation, just so 
soon as he should appear. No other preparation of heart, they 
supposed, was necessary, than such as was attainable by means 
then within their reach. Here they erred: for inseparably con- 
nected with this lower salvation or redemption, was their deliver- 
ance from sin, Luke i. 77 ; John viii. 32 — 36, and their perfec- 
tion in holiness as a nation, Isa. Ix. 21; liv. 13; liii. 1; John 
vi. 45; Ps. xxxvii. 11, 22; Matt. v. 48, and these could not be 
attained consistently with the Divine plan except by the suffer- 
ings of Christ. To this defect in their faith, as we suppose, 
our Lord especially alluded in the words "ought not (the) Christ 
to have suffered?" &c. 

(3.) Again; they had no conception of God's ^ purpose to 
gather an elect people or church out of all nations, and to exalt 
it far above all terrestrial glory and bliss, by bringing it into 
intimate and everlasting union with himself, through Christ cru- 



ERRONEOUS VIEWS OF THE DISCIPLES ACCOUNTED FOR. 493 

cified and glorified. This . purpose, so far as we can discover, 
was first plainly disclosed in our Lord's intercession with the 
Father, which the Evangelist John has recorded, chap, xvii., 
for the instruction of the Church. Cleopas perhaps had not 
heard those wonderful words ; but if he had, he did not compre- 
hend them ; for Paul speaks of this Divine purpose as a mystery, 
hid in Grod from the beginning of the world, until it was revealed 
to the apostles by his Spirit, Eph. iii. 1 — 11, which was not 
given until after the events we are now considering. This is an 
important consideration. It shows us how we may account for 
the defective views of the first followers of Christ, without 
ascribing to them carnal and mere worldly hopes. The build- 
ing of such a church involved most unexpected events ; such as 
the rejection of Israel according to the flesh for a season, Matt. 
xxi. 43, the opening of a dispensation of grace to all nations, 
which was to continue during an undefined period of time, until 
the number of the elect, as settled in the Divine purpose, should 
be fully accomplished. See notes on John xvii., and notes on 
Luke xviii. 7. They knew not these things, simply because the 
Spirit of God as yet had not taught them. Eph. iii. 5. 

(4.) Moreover, these disciples did not understand God's pur- 
pose to redeem the earth itself from the curse and restore it to 
its lost place in his universal kingdom. See notes on Matt. 
iii. 2, and xix. 28. 

They limited, in fact, Jehovah's promises of redemption to 
the earthly house and throne of David, and to the deliverance 
of Israel according to the flesh from Babylonian and Roman 
bondage, to which they were then subject. They hoped for 
pre-eminence among the nations of the earth in its present con- 
dition. Consequently the redemption of Israel from bondage 
to the Gentiles, and their restoration to the land God gave to 
Abraham, was a much more glorious event, according to the 
Divine purpose, than they conceived it to be ; for it included 
the deliverance, not only of their own land, but of the whole 
earth from the bondage of the curse : — of their people from the 
bondage of sin, John viii. 36, and their pre-eminence in dignity, 
glory, and power, among holy and redeemed nations, in the 
world restored from the effects of the curse, and re-invested 
with the beauty and glory of Paradise. But the crowning glory 
of all these blessings is yet to be mentioned — we mean the res- 
toration of the Theocracy — the reign of Jehovah Jesus over 
Israel restored and made perfectly holy, and over the whole 
earth, in peerless majesty. Cleopas and his companion had no 
such thoughts as these. They had fixed their hearts upon a 
national deliverance and terrestrial blessings, such as the world 
in its present condition may afford; in which they hoped 



494 r NOTES ON SCEIPTURE. 

to share, in common with the pious and the good of their own 
people. They thought not of that Divine sonship and that 
better inheritance which Christ had purchased for them and for 
all his elect, John i. 12, comprising within itself eternal life and 
glory, enlargement from the clogs and restraints of their fleshly 
natures, together with exaltation far above all other creatures, 
in virtue of their union with him, their Redeemer. John xvii. 
To enlarge and correct their views on these and kindred topics, 
so far as they were capable of receiving the instruction, we may 
suppose was the chief object of our Lord's discourse with them, 
as they pursued their journey to Emmaus. 

Luke xxiv. 27. "And beginning at Moses and all the 
prophets, he expounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the 
things concerning himself." 

It is evident from this verse, that there are prophecies in the 
books of Moses concerning Christ, and such we reckon Gen. 
iii. 15; xxii. 1 — 9 and 18; xxvi. 4; xlix. 10, 11; Deut. 
xviii. 15; Numb. xxi. 9. Yet some commentators admit only 
one, Gen. xxii. 18, if we except the typical representations of 
the Levitical service. This opinion is quite erroneous. Heb. 
xi. 26; xii. 26; Acts. xxvi. 22; 1 Cor. x. 4. Whether these 
were all the places which our Lord explained we can only con- 
jecture. Proceeding to the prophets we may imagine he cited 
and explained such as Ps. xvi. 8 — 10 ; xxii. ; cxxxii. 11 ; Isa. 
vii. 14; Jer. xxiii. 5; Ezek. xxxiv. 23; Dan. ix. 24—26; 
Micah v. 2; Zech. vi. 12; Micah vii. 20. 

It has been said, also, that the number of the prophecies 
which the Lord cited and explained on this occasion must have 
been small, because before the journey to Emmaus was ended 
he had very exactly gone through all of them. But we must 
not imagine that our Lord's method of unfolding the Scriptures 
was in any respect like that to which we are accustomed. 
Volumes, no doubt, might be written to unfold the meaning of 
the few we have cited, without perhaps making them any clearer 
either to the unlearned or the learned, while he who perfectly 
comprehended the whole of the Scriptures, and who spake as 
never man spake, could comprise the whole in a brief discourse. 
The voluminous and conflicting commentaries which we have 
upon even small portions of the Scriptures, are sad evidence of 
the ignorance of the learned, Job xxxviii. 2, as well as of the 
unlearned, for whom such labours are especially designed. 

Luke xxiv. 28, 29. "And they drew nigh unto the village 
whither they went, and he made as though he would have gone 
further, [that is, he seemed to them as if he intended or inclined 
to go further, as he would have done if they had not] con- 
strained him, saying : Abide with us ; for it is towards evening, 



EVENTS OF THE DAY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 495 

and the day. is far spent. And he went in [as if he intended] 
to tarry with them." 

It was a custom, we are told, among the Jews, not to enter 
the house of any one as a guest without being invited, and the 
Lord Jesus, by continuing his course onward as they were part- 
ing from him, until invited to stay with them, merely complied 
with that custom. Undoubtedly he would have parted from 
them and passed ODward, had they not earnestly requested him 
to abide with them. This conduct of the Saviour, then, affords 
no colour of justification to falsehood, or dissimulation, or 
insincerity, though it does justify a compliance with the inno- 
cent usages of society. 

It is more important to observe, however, how fully persuaded 
these disciples were, that he was simply and merely a man like 
themselves. 

Their hearts were deeply affected by his conversation; they 
desired to enjoy more of it, and that was the motive of their 
urgency. Had they supposed him to be an angel or a spirit, 
or more or less than a man of like susceptibilities with them- 
selves, would they have addressed him in such language ? 

Luke xxiv. 30. " And it came to pass as he sat at meat 
with them, he took bread and blessed it [or gave thanks] and 
brake and gave to them." 

We are not informed whether this action was performed at 
the beginning or at the end of the meal. But as it was one of 
the objects, perhaps the chief object of his intercourse at this 
time with these disciples, to give them convincing and indu- 
bitable evidence of his resurrection, it is probable that he had 
already partaken of food with them; for this was one of the 
proofs much insisted upon by the apostles. Acts x. 41 ; Luke 
xxiv. 41.* 

We are expressly informed, that he reclined with them at 
the table, as if to partake of food (Iv to xarayJudrjvac abrov). 
But before he took the bread and broke it — an action proper 
to be performed only by the head or master of the family, or 
company, at the table — he must have risen, or at least changed 
his posture. We may imagine that, instantly on his arising, he 
assumed the tones of voice, and that inimitable manner of action 
in addressing the Father, with which they were familiar. He 

* Augustine says that the human body, in its resurrection state, would be 
imperfect if it could not partake of food; and that it would be imperfectly 
happy if it had need of food. Epist. 49, Civit. Dei xiii. 22. But the par- 
taking of food is deemed conclusive evidence of life in the partaker, and 
hence our Lord ordered the parents of the child he restored to life to give 
her food. 



496 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

puts the bread in their hands extended unconsciously, in their 
amazement, to receive it; and while they thus held it, untasted 
perhaps, he disappears. Most, if not all, of the ancient com- 
mentators, regard this blessing, or giving of thanks and breaking 
of bread, as the sacrament of the body of the Lord. We do 
not perceive any grounds for such an interpretation. No men- 
tion is made in this place of the cup. 1 Cor. xi. 25 ; Luke xxii. 
19, 20. The action was designed rather as a means of recogni- 
tion, and as a proof of the reality of his bodily presence, and 
the identity of his person. 

Luke xxiv. 31. " And their eyes were opened, and they 
knew him, and he vanished out of their sight." 

So striking and peculiar to himself was his attitude, his voice, 
and expressions, that the truth flashed upon both their minds 
irresistibly, at the same instant, although they had thought of 
him, until that moment, only as absent and dead. They knew 
him. Their eyes were no longer holden, (ixparouvzo, verse 16,) 
but opened (drrjvoc'^dr I ao.v, verse 31.) At the same instant, he 
ceased to be seen of them (dcpavroz kjevero an aurajv. See mar- 
ginal translation.) How great their amazement ! How unac- 
countable, that they did not know him before ! Their hearts, 
however, were truer to his words, than their eyes were to his 
person ! 

Luke xxiv. 32. " And they said one to the other, Did not 
our heart burn within us [was not our heart burning within us] 
while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us 
the Scriptures?" [while he was. talking with us, and opening to 
us the Scriptures.] 

The power and Divine unction of his words penetrated their 
souls. They were now prepared to believe the report of the 
women, which they had heard in Jerusalem, but heeded not. 
They had obtained new, though perhaps not very enlarged 
views of the prophetic Scriptures. Some things which before 
were dark, or shut up, were now clear, and shed a joyous light 
upon the occurrences which, just before, were sorrowful and 
perplexing. Above all, they had found him whom they had 
mourned as dead and gone. Their hearts turned to their com- 
panions in sorrow, and laying aside the purpose of their journey, 
whatever it may have been, 

Luke xxiv. 33. " They rose up the same hour and returned 
to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them 
that were with them" — who, though they had not seen Jesus, 
had heard of his resurrection, and were conversing among them- 
selves, as Cleopas and his companion entered the room where 
they were assembled. 



EVENTS OF THE DAY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 497 

Luke xxiv. 34. "Saying,* The Lord is risen, indeed, and 
hath appeared to Simon." 

We infer from this passage, that the Lord appeared to Peter 
when he was alone, before he appeared to any other of his male 
disciples, but when or where, we are not expressly informed. 
See notes on Luke xxiv. 12. Perhaps it was with a view to 
such a favour, that a special message was sent to Peter by the 
angel, as Mark relates, xvi. 7. We may also infer from this 
verse, that this apostle was not present at that time, although 
he may have come in afterwards. That Thomas was not present, 
we learn from John xx. 24. Hence, we take the expression, 
"the eleven," as designed to designate the whole body of the 
apostles, as it was at that time — eleven being the number after 
the apostasy of Judas Iscariot. Acts i. 26; Mark xvi. 14; 
Matt, xxviii. 16. It is probable that nine, only, of the apos- 
tles were actually present at that time, though there were others, 
and perhaps some of the female disciples with them. 

We observe in this expression tfffzpd'/] 6 xopco^ outco^) an em- 
phasis — an air of earnestness, which seems to say, that now 
indeed, they were really convinced. The report of the women 
they disregarded, verse 11, but Simon's account of the Lord's 
appearance to him convinced them. "Truly [ovtcdz, in reality] 
the Lord is risen, and hath appeared," &c. But how can we 
reconcile this interpretation with Mark xvi. 13? We have 
taken it for granted, that the two disciples referred to in Mark 
xvi. 12, were Cleopas and 'his companion ; and Mark says, verse 
13, that when they went and told what they had seen and heard, 
to the residue, they were not believed. Yet, according to what 
Luke here says, the eleven had already been convinced by the 
appearance to Simon. 

We suppose that Mark, in the 13th verse, does not refer to 
the eleven, but to others, to whom these disciples related the 
same things. Observe, Mark uses, verse 13, the expression 
(zoo; Xocnoit;) the residue, to denote the persons who did not be- 
lieve, while in the next verse he denotes the apostles by the 
words (ro^c eudsxa) "the eleven," as Luke does. Who those 
others were, and where Cleopas and his companion found them, 

* The word saying (m^ovtac) must be referred to (rous hJataL, &c.) the eleven, 
and not to Cleopas and his companion. The true reading is, without doubt, 
xryovras and not Kzyovrie. The connection requires it. For Simon was not one 
of the two who went to Emmaus, and if he were, Cleopas had also seen Jesus. 
Why should these two disciples say, if Simon was one of them, that the Lord 
had appeared to Simon without naming Cleopas, if they referred to the appear- 
ance to them on their way to Emmaus? The meaning is, that during the 
absence of these disciples it had become known at Jerusalem that the Lord 
had appeared to Simon; and this they were conversing about when Cleopas 
and his companion entered to tell them of yet another appearance. 

63 



498 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

we are not informed. Did they meet them on their return to 
the city from Emmaus, or in the city before they joined the 
eleven? Did they meet them on the same or on the succeeding 
day? These questions we cannot answer. Thus much, how- 
ever, is evident : the 13th and 14th verses of Mark are not to 
be understood as referring to the same time or persons, and this 
is sufficient to remove the appearance of contradiction. 

Still it is objected that Mark, in the 14th verse, represents 
the eleven as incredulous, notwithstanding what Luke affirms, 
of the effect of the testimony of Peter. This objection we 
shall notice hereafter. 

Cleopas and his companion, finding the apostles engaged in 
animated joyful conversation about what Simon had seen and 
heard, which, probably, Simon himself had related to them, or 
to some one of their number, they interrupt the conversation, 
and go on to relate — 

Luke xxiv. 35. "What things" had happened to them while 
they were "in the way" going to Emmaus, "and how he was 
known of them in breaking of bread;" that is, during the meal 
or repast they took with him at that place. 

An orderly narrative, as the original word ig-yyouvro implies, 
of all that occurred from the time the Lord joined them on the 
way, until he disappeared, would probably have required a con- 
siderable time. The phraseology allows us to believe that their 
story was not interrupted till the substance of it was told. And 
with what intense interest must it have been listened to by the 
company ! We can only judge of it by the hold which we know 
everything that concerned Jesus had upon their minds. The 
expression "in the breaking of bread" is idiomatic, and signifies, 
as before intimated, during the meal or repast. We do not un- 
derstand it as intended to denote the particular act mentioned 
in verse 30, but in the general sense explained. 

Luke xxiv. 36, 37. "And as they thus spake," while they 
were yet speaking, "Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, 
and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terri- 
fied and affrighted, and supposed they saw a spirit." 

This effect of the sudden, and we may add, miraculous ap- 
pearance of the Lord, is just that which might have been antici- 
pated, notwithstanding they appear to have been convinced 
before of the fact of his resurrection. It furnishes a reason, as 
we suppose, for the different method the Lord observed in his 
approach to Mary Magdalen, and to Cleopas and his compa- 
nion. It requires but little observation of human nature to 
know the extreme dread and terror all men instinctively feel 
when anything supernatural is supposed to occur. ' The real or 
supposed appearance of a departed spirit excites such a sensa- 



EVENTS OF THE DAY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 499 

tion of nearness to the unseen world, that the most resolute spirit 
quails and recoils at the sight. We regard such an event as a 
significant intimation of what exists behind the veil' — an antici- 
pation, so to speak, of a power yet to be universally felt, in the 
full development of good or evil. 

It is pertinent to remark, also, how universally this belief of 
the spirit-world is spread among men. It is not peculiar to any 
nation, or age, or religion. The refined Athenians of antiquity 
and the Romans believed in a world of spirits. The uncivilized 
Hottentot and the savage Caribbean, of more modern times, 
have held the same belief. The ancient Jews, perhaps we 
should except the Sadducees, also believed in the reality of 
spirits. Philosophy has no arguments to refute the dogma, nor 
to secure mankind against fears from this source.* 

Revelation alone can furnish us with any solid knowledge on 
this subject. From this source we know that there are angels 
good and bad. We also know that they are under the control 
of a higher power, and can no more transcend the laws 
appointed to them, than we can the laws appointed to us. We 
know, also, that the souls of men exist after they have left 
their bodies in the places appointed to them, being consmous of 
their condition and their destiny, but without the Divine per- 
mission they have no more power to appear to, or hold converse 
with us, during their disembodied state, than we have to appear 
among them in our fleshly corporeal forms. But to return to 
the text. 

Luke xxiv. 88, 39, 40. " And he said unto them, why are 
ye troubled, and why do thoughts [questionings, doubts] arise 
in your hearts ? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I 
myself. Handle me and see : for a spirit hath not flesh and 
bones as ye see me have; and having said this, he showed them 
his hands and his feet." 

Our Lord seems to admit that spirits may appear to men, 
(when permitted) but he says nothing expressly of the kind of 
spirits — whether human or angelic. His object did not require 
him to do so. He wished to remove their misapprehension in 
relation to himself and their fears, which he did by giving 
them a test by which they could surely know that he was not a 
disembodied spirit. He does not assert that a spirit may not 

* Calmet has written Dissertations sur les Apparitions des Anges, &c, which 
have been translated into English, and published under the title of "The 
Phantom World; or, The History and Philosophy of Spirits, Apparitions," &e. 
The Rev. Henry Christmas characterizes it as "a vast repertory of legends, 
more or less probable, some of which have very little foundation, and some 
which Calmet himself would have done well to omit, though now, as a pic- 
ture of the belief entertained in that day, they greatly add to the value of 
the book." 



500 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

have a material body, but that a spirit hath not a body of flesh 
and bones, such as he had. 1 Cor. xv. 50, 44, 49; Heb. i. 14; 
ii. 14. 

Undoubtedly our Lord's body, at that time, was composed of 
real human flesh and bones — the identical flesh and bones com- 
posing the body which suffered. To the eye of the disciples 
he appeared to be the same person as ever before. We infer 
this, because his object was to prove his corporeal identity. 
His body, therefore, must have been preserved in its natural 
state of flesh and bones, although in other respects it possessed 
properties no doubt that it did not before. For example, we 
may believe it was no longer passible, or capable of suffering 
pain, or of dying. It was also perfectly subject to his infinite 
spirit, he having been enlarged from the restraints to which 
before death he was subject. Luke xii. 50. It was capable of 
being transported at his will, without violence to its nature, 
from earth to heaven and from heaven to earth ; although it 
was not yet glorified or transformed, through the baptism of 
the Holy Spirit, into that glorious nature in which he after- 
wards appeared to John and to Paul. Rev. i. 13 — 15 ; Acts 
xxii. 6; ix. 3, 4; see note on Matt, xxviii. 9, 10. Our Lord 
exhibited his hands and his feet to the disciples for the express 
purpose of proving, by the highest possible evidence the disci- 
ples could appreciate, that the body in which he then appeared 
before them was no phantom, but the very body of flesh and 
bones which had been rudely taken from them in the garden, 
and conducted to the palace of the high priest, and from thence 
to the hall of Pilate, and taken by the soldiers from thence to 
Calvary, and by them nailed to the cross. A spirit could not 
be felt if it could be seen, nor could it be seen to bear such 
marks as those he exhibited. Hence these proofs, added to the 
appearance of his whole person, his demeanour, his voice, his 
respiration, were full and perfect. They furnished his disci- 
ples with as convincing evidence of his corporeal and spiritual 
identity as they possibly could have of the presence and iden- 
tity of each other.* 

* Do we inquire whether the very wounds appeared as freshly made, or 
only the scars of them— the wounds themselves having been closed up and 
healed ? The Evangelists do not explicitly resolve this question. We know, 
however, that such wounds could not have been healed in so short an inter- 
val — between Friday afternoon and Sunday evening — by a process of nature 
in any other person. The wound in his side was made after he had expired ; 
and while the body remained lifeless in the sepulchre, the restorative powers 
of his human physical nature ceased. At his resurrection he could have 
restored his body to the state it was in before his crucifixion without leaving 
even a mark or scar. Yet why should we suppose he did this ? The miracle 
would have weakened the evidence of the identity of his person. When 
they last saw that body, (on Friday afternoon) the flesh was cruelly lace- 



EVENTS OF THE DAY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 501 

Luke xxrv. 41. " And while they yet believed not for joy 
and wonder, he said unto them, Have ye here any meat?" 

A moment before they were affrighted, but the brief address 
of the Saviour and the exhibition he made of his hands and his 
feet to their sight and touch dispelled their fears, and filled 
them with unexpected joy. How sudden the transition ! They 
knew not what to think. They knew not whether they should 
believe or not. They stood between fear and hope. Their 
perplexity had passed into wonder. Was what they seemed to 
see and hear (for we do not read that any of them had ventured 
to touch his person, though invited to do so) possible? Could 
they believe their senses ? Such a condition *of the mind as 
we have described is neither impossible nor unnatural.* Ps. 
cxxvi. 1. 

To remove this new perplexity, the Saviour resorts to another 
proof. He called for food, that he might partake of it in their 
presence: "Have ye here any meat?" We may read these 
words, perhaps, without the question. Ye have here something 
to eat. It is supposed he found them reclining at the table at 
their evening meal, with their food before them. 

Luke xxiv. 42, 43. "And they gave him a piece of 
broiled fish, and of an honeycomb, and he took and did eat 
before them." 

It is not necessary to add to the observations already made 
on verse 30. It is sufficient to say that this proof removed 
every doubt, and their minds had become so far tranquillized, 
that they could listen with composure to his instructions. Be- 



rated. How could such wounds be healed so soon, except by a miracle, and 
what proof had they of such a miracle ? And why should we suppose he 
miraculously healed those wounds ? It was not necessary to the restoration 
of physical life. He, (the quickening Spirit) by mere occupation, could give 
and maintain its life, while allowing the wounds to remain just as they were 
when first inflicted. After his glorification we have no reason to suppose 
that either wounds or scars appeared upon his person. If we may adopt 
this suggestion, may we not suppose that the vision of the Lamb slain, Rev. 
v. 6, has respect to the appearance of Jesus in heaven before his glorifica- 
tion ? See notes on John xx. 17. We add: If the existence of such wounds 
seemed inconsistent with physical life, and raised a doubt in the minds of 
the eleven, whether after all he was not a spirit or phantom ; the calling 
for food, and partaking of it in their presence, and his breathing on them, 
were well calculated, if not designed, to dispel a doubt arising from such a 
consideration. 

* The Roman historian, Livy, in book 39, chap. 49, informs us that Philo- 
pcemen, the Achean general, after a battle, contrary to all expectation, re- 
mained alive. The enemy found him, and bore him off. He describes their 
feelings in these words, which are very apposite to our subject: " Vix sibi- 
met ipsi prce nee opinato gaudio credentes," " scarcely believing themselves on 
account of the unexpected joy." 



502 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

fore proceeding further with this Evangelist, we must turn to the 
places in Mark and John which are supposed to refer to the 
same appearance of the Saviour. 

Mark xvi. 14. "Afterwards he appeared unto the eleven 
as they sat at meat, and upbraided them with their unbelief 
and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which 
had seen him after he was risen." 

This verse is commonly regarded as parallel with the passage 
in Luke which we have just considered, and so we have arranged 
it in the brief harmony prefixed to these chapters. Erasmus, 
however, in his Paraphrases, postpones this verse till near the 
time of our Lord's final visible ascension.* 

It is to be observed that Mark does not denote the time with 
any degree of definiteness. "Afterward (parepov) he ap- 
peared;" that is, after he appeared to the two disciples as they 
were going into the country, he appeared to the eleven as they 
sat at meat. Townsend supposes it was eight days afterwards; 
that is, on the Sunday following the Sunday on which he rose. 
The objection to considering it as referring to the appearance 
Luke speaks of, is that neither Luke nor John records anything 
as said by the Saviour, which can be considered an wpbraidiny 
of them for their unbelief and hardness of heart. On the con- 
trary, his words were full of tenderness. His behaviour and 
discourse, as the author just mentioned remarks, were directed 
to the composing of their troubles and the satisfying of their 
doubts. Accordingly, he assigns the passage to a later period, 
when at least a whole week had been allowed the disciples to 
examine and compare the proofs of his resurrection, and to call 
to mind his own predictions and promises concerning it. Then, 
if no more was said by way of reproof than what he said to 
Thomas, it was a reprehension of the others, who were in the 
same state of mind, and sufficient to justify Mark's expression, 
"He upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of 
heart," meaning to include therein other disciples besides the 
apostles. Unless we adopt this view, we must understand the 
expression of Mark, "upbraided them," (covEidtae) as signifying 
nothing more than what Luke records of our Lord's language 
on the occasion of his first appearance to the eleven, or we 
must suppose that both Luke and John have omitted some 
expressions which would justify the expression of Mark. It is 
a question which cannot be determined with certainty, and it is 

* Postremo, jam abiturus in caelum, apparuit undecim apostolis — nam 
Judas perierat — in convivio accumbentibus, quibus exprobravit incredulitatem 
et duritiem cordis, quod his qui vidissent ipsum, resurrexisse non credidissent. 
See Erasmi Paraphrases. 



EVENTS OF THE DAY OE CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 503 

left to the reader to adopt such view as may seem to him the 
most reasonable.* 

We turn now to John xx. 19. There can be no doubt that 
the appearance recorded in this verse is the same as that 
described by Luke, though more briefly, and with some parti- 
culars which Luke omits. 

John xx. 19. " The same day at evening, being the first 
day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples 
were assembled, for fear of the Jews, came Jesus, and stood in 
the midst and saith unto them, Peace be unto you." 

John records four appearances of the Lord, after his resur- 
rection : The first was in the morning to Mary Magdalen, when 
she was alone at the sepulchre; yet in the next chapter 
(verse 14) he speaks of the fourth appearance as the third. 
His appearance to Mary was, as has been suggested, for a 
special purpose. See notes on verse 17. His appearance to his 
male disciples was to qualify them to be witnesses to the world 
of his resurrection. Hence it was that while he allowed the 
women, at his second appearance, Matt, xxviii., to hold him by 
the feet, he did not command them to take hold of his person, 
nor give them those varied evidences of his corporeal presence, 
he gave his male disciples. Lukexxiv. 39; Johnxx. 20, 27; xxi. 
For some such reason, we suppose, John took no notice of our 
Lord's appearance to the other women, and omits in his nume- 
rical series the first appearance to Mary, and mentions as first 
in order, the Lord's appearance to his male disciples, recorded 

* We have seen that Erasmus postpones this verse till near the time 
of our Lord's visible ascension. Beza's remarks on this last chapter of Mark 
seem to imply, that the whole of it may be understood of events which oc- 
curred on the day of our Lord's resurrection without any violence to the lan- 
guage, although he does not make such an application of it. His words are: 
"Marcus hsec omnia in unum velut corpus conjungit. Deinde exponit quo- 
modo eodem die fuerat duobus illis conspectus qui rus ibant. In postrerna 
demum parte commemorat quomodo discipulis apparuit, incipiens a prima 
ilia apparitione, quae facta est eo ipso die quo resurrexit, quam alise postea 
multoR consecutaB sunt. Sed eas omnes rursus in unam velut historiam con- 
trahit ; ideoque, postremam hanc apparitionem vocat quse ab ipso die resur- 
rectionis ad ascensionem porrigitur, ut liquet ex versiculo 19. Eandem 
prorsus rationem sequitur Lucas postremo capite in quo, ita connectit primam 
illam apparitionem cum postrema, ut nisi quis hoc quod dixi consideret, sit 
existimaturus, Dominum eo ipse die quo primum apparuit discipulis (id est 
quo resurrexerat) in ccelum ascendisse, cum dies quadraginta intercesserint ut 
ipsemet refert." These remarks of Beza are more applicable to the last 
chapter of Mark than to the last chapter of Luke. The word "afterward," 
Ca-Tipcv, in the 14th verse of Mark, makes a break in the narrative. We are not 
obliged to understand the appearance spoken of by Mark as having been made 
on the day on which the Lord arose. But we find no such break in Luke's 
narrative. The series of the occurrences which he records, .down to the 51st 
verse inclusively, appear to be immediately consecutive, and compel us to 
believe that our Lord ascended into heaven on the evening of the day of his 
resurrection. See notes on John xx. 17. 



504 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

in the verse we are now to consider. Comp. verses 19, 24, 26, 
and chap. xxi. 2, 14. It took place on the evening of the 
same day he appeared to Mary, being the first day of the week, 
and must have been the same appearance which Luke speaks 
of, unless we suppose he appeared twice to the apostles on the 
same evening, which would be inconsistent with the relation of 
Luke, xxiv. 36 — 49. John's account, in fact, is supplementary 
to Luke's, and for that reason is more brief. If we compare 
the two, we shall be prepared properly to appreciate the diver- 
sities almost everywhere discernible in the Gospels, in the nar- 
rations of the same events. They are not contradictions nor 
discrepancies, because it is not only possible, but easy to weave 
all the incidents into one consistent narrative, though it may 
not be possible always to determine with certainty the times or 
the order of the occurrences. In the passage under considera- 
tion, John informs us, that the disciples were assembled with 
closed doors, through fear of the Jews. The motive for shutting 
the doors suggests that they were also secured by bars, or bolts ; 
indeed the word (x£xXeta[ieva)v) translated shut, implies as much. 
See Matt. xxv. 10, 11, Gr. Such a precaution, if it did not 
effectually secure them from their enemies, would prevent a 
sudden intrusion into their company without notice. Hence the 
sudden appearance of the Lord Jesus in the midst of them would 
naturally cause the fright which Luke so vividly describes ; and 
suggest to the imagination that the intruder was not a human 
being, but a spirit: for how could he enter, the doors being 
shut, if he were a corporeal being? Luke xxiv. 37. This im- 
agination suggested, perhaps, the mode or form of proof which 
the Lord adopted — "See my hands, my feet; handle me, and 
satisfy yourselves that it is I myself, in my very body of flesh 
and bones." But Luke had not mentioned in his account of 
the crucifixion, the piercing of his side, and he says nothing of 
the exhibition of it on this occasion to the disciples. This 
omission John supplies, and from his account we infer that 
Jesus removed his dress to lay this wound bare to their view — 
an action which of itself would tend to dispel their unfounded 
apprehension. Luke records the words with which the Lord 
accompanied these various actions, and the mixed emotions of 
the disciples, fear, joy, wonder ! John speaks only of the fact 
of his showing them his hands and his side, and of the joy into 
which the other emotions subsided. Luke records the heads of 
the discourse the Saviour held with his disciples, after their 
fears were allayed and their minds composed, verses 44 — 48, 
while John speaks only of the mission, on which he declared, 
at the conclusion of his discourse, he would send them, and the 
powers which should be imparted to them for that purpose, by 



EVENTS OF THE DAY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 505 

the Holy Spirit, verses 21 — 23. Luke also records the promise 
of the Holy Spirit, but does not mention the symbolical action 
of breathing on the apostles, in token of the Spirit's inspiration. 
John, it is well known, wrote last of the Evangelists. He sup- 
plies many important and interesting incidents which the other 
Evangelists omitted. We may regard him as having had that 
purpose especially in view, or we may regard him and the other 
Evangelists as intending to record a part only, John xx. 30; 
xxi. 25, of the memorable sayings and doing of the Lord Jesus, 
and of the events that befell him.* 

Luke xxiv. 44. "And he said unto them: These are the 
words that I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that 
all things must be fulfilled which were written in the law of 
Moses, and in the prophets, aud in the Psalms concerning me." 

Observe the style of this address : The Lord speaks of him- 
self as of one who was no longer with them as he had been 
before. Comp. Acts ix. 39. He was actually present with them 
in his body at that very time, or the exhibition of his hands and 
feet and side, and his breathing upon them and talking with 
them, was all an illusion. On no other condition could they 
handle him and feel his flesh and bones. Certainly he was 
locally, personally present with them in the very body which 
hung on the cross. In what sense, then, was he no longer with 
them ? He had ascended to the Father. The earth was no 
longer the place of his domicile. His sacrificial work was done ; 
his earthly ministry, as a man, was ended; and although incar- 
nate and not yet glorified, he was with them, as he was with 
Abraham in the plain of Mamre, Gen. xviii. 1, or with Manoah. 
Judges xiii. He was come to them again from the Father, not 
to abide with them ; not to continue with them in social inter- 
course in the flesh, but simply to qualify them to be eye-wit- 
nesses of his resurrection. f 

* Like Xenophon in his work upon Socrates, they record, says a learned 
•writer, (a7rcfAV»/uovsjuaTct) Memorabilia, without pretending to furnish their 
readers with an extended connected record of the whole of his life, or even of 
his public life. Hence Matthew and Mark confine themselves chiefly to what 
he did in Galilee. Of the rest they speak only summarily. Luke dwells 
chiefly upon the Lord's last journey to Jerusalem. See from the ninth chapter 
to the end of his Gospel. John gives more of his history in Judea than the 
other Evangelists. His Gospel is peculiarly rich in the private instructions 
which the Lord gave to his disciples and others who sought him with a friendly 
and teachable spirit. See chaps, iii., iv., xiii. to xvii. Neither of the Gospels, 
therefore, was intended as a biography or as a journal of his private and public 
life, but rather as excerpts or miscellanies selected from his life by each Evan- 
gelist independently of the others : the common design of all being to prove 
the Divine nature and mission of our blessed Lord, and the object of his incar- 
nation and death, so that believing in him we may have life through his name. 
John xx 31 ; Acts xiii. 38 — 41. 

f According to Mill, some MSS. add to Acts x. 41, after the word trvvvricuiv 

64 



506 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Observe also the matter of the address: " These are the 
■words which I spake unto you." What words? Are they the 
words which follow to the end of the verse? viz. "that all 
things must be fulfilled," &c. This may be the sense. See 
Luke xviii. 31; Ps. xxii. 16. But the expression admits of 
another sense. " These are the things which I spoke of" — mean- 
ing the wounds in his hands and his feet, which perhaps he ex- 
hibited to them while pronouncing these words.* 

If we may understand the words in this sense, the Lord 
referred to his repeated predictions of his sufferings, which per- 
plexed them so much, which they could not believe were even 
possible. These predictions he began to utter when Peter first 
declared, by Divine inspiration, the mystery of his person, which 
he repeated to them afterwards frequently in private, f 

And now, when they saw them fulfilled, he says, "These are 
the things of which I spake," &c, when I said, "that all things 
written in the law," &c, concerning me must be fulfilled. 

We observe again, that our Lord here recognizes and sanc- 
tions the three great divisions of the Jewish Scriptures, the 
Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms ; and expressly asserts that 
he is the great subject of each of them. Indeed, if they relate 
to him at all, the other matters they contain must be of subor- 
dinate moment. It seems to us strange that this sense of the 
Scriptures, thus exhibited to them, should have escaped the ob- 
servation of the whole nation, even of the devout. But it was 
not consistent with the Divine plan, that the nation should un- 
derstand clearly before the event, the revelation of a rejected 
and suffering Messiah; for a clear disclosure of the event would 
have seemed inconsistent with the proclamation of the kingdom, 
and the freeness of the offer of its blessings. Luke xiii. 34; 
xix. 41, 42 ; Matt, xxiii. 37 ; xxi. 42, 43 ; iv. 17. Although 
these things were revealed, yet to the nation they were a pro- 
found mystery ; and hence our Lord, in private, told his disci- 
ples of them beforehand, that when they should come to pass 

the words kcu ffj/van-fst^ev. Hence, it has been inferred, by some commenta- 
tors, that our Lord, during the forty days following his resurrection, wenf about 
with his disciples in social daily intercourse, as he did during his public 
ministry. The expression in Luke xxiv. 44, W iv ovv vy.iv, is quite sufficient to 
confute this idea, and justify the common reading. 

* The word \oycc is often used in the Xew Testament in the sense of the He- 
brew *\27 dabar, which signifies casus, factum, or negotium, as well as sermo or 
verbum, or in the sense of 7rp*.yy.&, pi/un. See 1 Kings xv. 5, in Hebrew and 
Greek; Matt. v. 32. See Vorstius de Hebraism^ N. T., cap. xiv. 

f See Matt. xvi. 21; xvii. 22; xx. 18; Mark viii. 31; ix. 31; x. 33; Luke 
ix. 22; xviii. 31. Hardy's annotation is — " Haec sunt verba, vel res quas nunc 
videtis impletas, nimirum passionem et resurrectionem; quod mihi prsedicenti 
saepe non credidistis aut quod praedictum non intellexistis, nunc reipsa experi- 
mini, et oculis vestris cernitis." 



EVENTS OF THE DAY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 507 

they might believe. John xiii. 19 ; xiv. 29 ; xvi. 4. Now they 
could no longer doubt. His pierced hands and feet and side 
thus exhibited to them, proved beyond cavil or doubt, the sense 
in which he had explained to them the Scriptures. 

Luke xxiv. 45. "Then opened he their understanding, that 
they might understand the Scriptures." 

That is to say, He opened their minds by this exhibition of 
his living person to them, with the wounds which had been in- 
flicted upon it, for that was a practical or providential commen- 
tary on his previous declarations, which enabled them to com- 
prehend his meaning, and the true meaning of the Scriptures 
he had so often cited to them, and applied to himself. This 
was an advance in knowledge ; for when he last spoke to them 
of his approaching sufferings and death, which was only a few 
days before, Luke xviii. 31 — 34, " They understood none of the 
things that he said ; his meaning was hidden from them, neither 
understood they the things that were spoken of."* We are not 
to understand by this verse, that our Lord, at that time, im- 
parted to them spiritual illumination. That was .the appointed 
work of the Holy Spirit, John xvi. 13 — 15, and was reserved 
till the day of Pentecost. Acts iii. 

Luke xxiv. 46. "And he said unto them: Thus it is 
written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from 
the dead on the third day." 

We may regard this verse as exegetical or explanatory of 
what he had already said. " Thus as I have told you, it is 
written" in the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, con- 
cerning the Christ, "and thus," as you see in these (my) hands 
and in these (my) feet, Ps. xxii. 16, and in this (my) side, 
Zech. xii. ; Rev. i. 7, " it was necessary that the Christ should 
suffer" death by crucifixion, as ye saw me crucified, "and rise 
from the dead," as ye see me now risen "on the third day," 
Jonah i. 17 ; Matt. xvi. 4 ; xii. 40, afterwards, as ye now see 
me stand before you. We do not suppose that the Lord 
entered into a formal orderly exposition of Moses and the 
prophets at this interview, as he had done shortly before with 
Cleopas and his companion while walking with them to Em- 
maus. Rather, as we infer from verse 35, these disciples had 

* John the Baptist appears to have understood the mystery of a suffering 
Messiah, John i. 29, and in this respect he was far in advance of the apostles, 
until they were inspired by the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Yet, 
even John did not discern this mystery, we have reason to believe, before Jesus 
came to him for baptism. See a note on Matt. iii. 15. This was evidently the 
opinion of Clarius, who remarks on Matt. iii. 15: "Sunt qui credant ea ipsa 
hora, fuisse ei revelatum, etiam antequam signum sibi a Spiritu praedictum vi- 
disset." In no other way can we explain Matt. iii. 14, consistently with John 
i. 31—33. 



508 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

already (i^foovro) rehearsed fully to the eleven the discourse 
the Lord had held with them before he entered the apartment. 
In this way he made them his spokesmen on these topics, and 
with this design, perhaps, delayed his appearance until they 
had finished the rehearsal. That done, he stood visibly before 
them, to verify the words they had heard from Cleopas, by the 
exhibition of his person — thus opening their minds, not only to 
perceive, but to receive the literal and true sense of the pro- 
phetical Scriptures which Cleopas and his companion had 
explained. What an impressive commentary ! and how difficult 
it was to overcome the force of their preconceived opinions ! 
Yet, the literal sense which lay on the surface, was hid from 
them, neither did they understand it or receive it, until they 
saw it fulfilled in his flesh. We add : there is nothing in the 
narrative of Luke inconsistent with the supposition that Jesus 
was invisibly present with them in his body while these disci- 
ples were relating their story. Is it not possible, that sincere 
and faithful men, now-a-days, like these disciples, are blinded 
to some of the plainest truths of the Scriptures, by traditional 
theology ? 

Luke xxiv. 47. "And that repentance and remission of 
sins should be preached in his name among all nations, begin- 
ning at Jerusalem." 

This was a new topic, and the Divine purpose announced by 
these words, implied much more than the apostles were able, at 
that time, to comprehend. The sin of their nation, and their 
consequent fall, were about to introduce a new order of things. 
Rom. xi. 11, 12. The nation had lost its pre-eminence, and to 
a great extent its priority. Repentance and remission of sins 
were no longer to be preached to them exclusively, Acts xix. 4, 
as hitherto. Matt. x. 5, 6. Had the nation received their 
Messiah with the obedience of faith, he would have been emi- 
nently their Saviour. Ps. lxxxi. 13 — 16 ; Matt, xxiii. 37 ; 
Luke xiii. 34; xix. 41, 42; Exod. xix. 5, 6. But that was 
impossible, considering the depravity of their nature, and they 
could not reject him and put him to death, and yet enjoy 
exclusively or pre-eminently the blessings of his kingdom. 
Hence all other nations were to be included in the new com- 
mission. 

Yet the Jews are an example of what any other nation or 
race of men would have done in the same circumstances. Rom. 
iii. 9. Their fall proved — and it was designed to prove — the 
necessity of a dispensation of grace, and of a new agency, to 
prepare the world effectually for the coming of the kingdom of 
God, and its establishment in outward glory on the earth, for 
which we are taught to pray. Matt. vi. 10. Yet, for their sin, 



EVENTS OF THE DAY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 509 

the Divine judgments were to be sent upon them, their land 
was to be given up for a time to the Gentiles, their temple to 
be destroyed, their people to be dispersed, and all these things 
were to continue until the times before appointed for the 
continuance of Gentile power should elapse. Luke xxi. 24 ; 
Matt. xxi. 43. 

These results were due to the folly and sin of the nation as 
such. Yet within the nation there was an election of grace, 
Rom. xi. 5; John i. 12, on whose account its times were to be 
prolonged for a little season. These things, however, the Lord 
did not attempt to explain, and we know from the inquiry they 
made of him, forty days afterwards, Acts i. 6, they did not 
understand him as alluding even remotely to the impending 
calamities, although to some of their number he had within a 
week foretold them in the plainest language. Mark xiv. 8; 
Luke xxi. 20 — 24; Matt, xxi v. 21. Nor did they seem to 
comprehend what he intended by the words we are now consid- 
ering; because, a few years afterwards, a supernatural vision 
was necessary to make Peter comprehend God's purposes of 
mercy to the Gentiles. Acts x. 

Luke xxiv. 48. "And ye are witnesses of these things;" 
that is, of the Lord's sufferings, death, burial, and resurrection. 
He had given them every proof which it was possible for them 
to appreciate by their understanding or senses, in order that 
he might make them credible witnesses of the facts they were 
to attest in the fullest sense. And the great difficulty the 
apostles and most attached disciples of our Lord had in believ- 
ing his resurrection from the dead, became, in the order of 
Divine Providence, the means of establishing more firmly the 
truth of this doctrine, the hearty belief of which, as the apostle 
Paul teaches, is indispensable to salvation. Rom. x. 9. 

The resurrection of Christ was foretold, John xx. 9; ii. 19; 
1 Cor. xv. 4; Matt. xvi. 4; Acts ii. 31; xiii. 33; yet not so 
clearly that the Divine wisdom saw proper to dispense with 
human testimony to the fact. Indeed, the resurrection of 
Christ is the great miracle of this dispensation, and consider- 
ing the length of time the dispensation was to run, and the 
wide extent through which the fact was to be proclaimed, it is 
obvious it could not be established in any other way for all 
ages. Hence the apostles insist largely upon the testimony 
they allege in proof of the fact, 1 Cor. xv. 3 — 8, 15; Acts ii. 
32; iv. 33, 21; x. 39, 41, 42, confirmed as it was by the 
miraculous gifts and powers conferred upon them, Acts ii. 3, 4, 
33, and the miracles which they wrought, Acts'iii. 16; iv. 10. 
It is to be observed also, that this office of bearing testimony 
to his resurrection is here conferred upon (the eleven) his male 



510 NOTES ON SCRIPTUBE. 

disciples, as it was afterwards confined to them on the day of 
his final visible ascension into heaven, Acts i. 8, 22, to which 
official designation or appointment Peter refers in Acts x. 39. 
See John xv. 27, also. Hence, we learn that the ministry of 
the gospel of this dispensation of the Spirit is chiefly a witness- 
ing of the resurrection of Jesus, without which all preaching is 
vain and our faith is vain. 1 Cor. xv. 15, 17; Acts iv. 33; 
Rom. x. 9; Acts v. 32; x. 39—42. 

John xx. 21. "Then said Jesus unto them again: Peace be 
unto you; as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you."* 

We observe the same words nearly in our Lord's interces- 
sion, John xvii. 18, and as the eleven then present heard that 
intercession, only three days before, they would naturally 
notice the similarity. By comparing the mission he gave them, 
to the mission he had received and executed, he declared it to 
be heavenly and divine. As he was not of the world, so they 
were not of the world, John xvii. 16 ; and as he was sent into 
the world, so he sent them into the world, to preach repent- 
ance and the remission of sins in his name. They were quali- 
fied to do so as they had witnessed his sufferings and his death, 
and now had ocular proof of his resurrection. 

John xx. 22. "And when he had said this he breathed on 
them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost." 

His breathing on them was another proof of his corporeal 
presence, and of the restoration of the vital powers to his body. 
If the spear of the soldier had pierced the lung, its functions 
were restored, even if we suppose the external wound re- 
mained visible, and as freshly made. Some of the ancient 
commentators find in this action of breathing on them an allu- 
sion to Gen. ii. 7, where we are taught that in the creation of 
Adam God breathed into his face the breath of life, and he 
became a living soul: — -so now the Lord Jesus, by breathing 
upon his apostles, gave them a divine and supernatural life. 
See Augustine Tract on John xxxii.f 

Without dwelling on this conjecture, we may safely regard 
the action as symbolical, not as operative or efficacious. It sig- 

* In harmonizing and blending the record of John with that of Luke, it is 
impossible to decide with certainty the order in which the different matters 
recorded took place. Nor do we suppose the Evangelists themselves observed 
exactly the order of utterance or occurrence throughout. It seems to us that 
as soon as the Lord had recognized them as the witnesses of his resurrection, 
it was natural to advert to the mission in which they were to bear this testi- 
mony. Hence we have introduced this verse in this place. 

f Augustine supposed also that the Saviour intended to signify by breathing 
on the disciples, that the Holy Spirit would proceed from him as the breath 
emitted proceeded from his body, so that the Holy Spirit which he gave pro- 
ceeded from his Divine nature. 



EVENTS OF THE DAY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 511 

nified that they should as certainly receive the Holy Ghost as 
they received his breath — that He (the Spirit) would as cer- 
tainly breathe into or inspire their souls with knowledge, power, 
and every needful gift, as he (the Saviour) the*i breathed upon 
their countenances or persons. This method of instruction, by 
actions addressing the eyes, as well as by words addressing the 
ears, was not unusual with our Lord, John xiii. 4, 5, 12, 15 ; 
ix. 6, 7 ; viii. 6, and was quite agreeable to the manners of 
the Jews, Jer. xxvii. 2 ; Isa. xx. 3 ; Matt, xxvii. 24, and of 
other ancient nations. 

By the *Holy Ghost we understand the third person of the 
Trinity, the Comforter promised by the Saviour to his disciples, 
John xv. 26 ; xvi. 7, who was given on the day of Pentecost 
next following, Acts ii. 2, 4, when Jesus was glorified. John 
vii. 39. 

Luke xxiv. 49. "And behold I send the promise of my 
Father upon you; but tarry ye (xadcaoxe) in the city of Jerusa- 
lem, until ye be endued with power from on high." 

This passage confirms the interpretation before given of John 
xx. 22. Evidently Luke refers to the same promise of the 
Holy Spirit, whom the Lord assured them he would send upon 
them, but not then. "We know that the Spirit was given fifty 
days afterwards — at the Pentecost — though it is not probable 
the apostles knew beforehand what was the appointed time of 
this gift. They were kept in the posture of waiting, and not 
knowing, nor being capable of imagining how the fulfilment of 
this promise would affect them. Under their former mission, 
they exercised powers of the most extraordinary kind. Matt, 
x. 8. It is not probable that they were conscious of the 
manner in which they received those powers, and it is probable 
that after the trial of the nation was over, and at least as soon 
as our Lord's public ministry was closed, those miraculous 
powers were withdrawn. But now they were taught to expect 
a renewal of them in order to fit them for their new duties and 
the new field into which they were to be sent. 

It was with reference to the bestowment of this new power 
from on high they were commanded to remain together at 
Jerusalem, in order that its effect might be witnessed by those 
who the Lord designed should be first influenced thereby. 
Jerusalem was the point of confluence of devout Jews of every 
nation, many of whom would be brought together by the 
approaching festival, and thus in the providence of God 
become witnesses of the first signal display of the Divine 
presence and power at the inauguration of the' new dispensa- 
tion. The command to tarry in the city until they should be 
endued with the promised power, required indeed that they 



512 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

should not return to their homes in Galilee during this interval 
to abide there, but it did not prohibit their temporary absence;* 
for we know that several did leave that city afterwards for a 
time. John xxif 1. As the time, however, drew near, Acts 
i. 5, the command was renewed, Acts i. 4, fiq -fcwpc^eodac, in a 
form to induce greater strictness in observing it. They had 
this motive for strict obedience, that the promised power would 
be conferred at Jerusalem, and of course upon those only who 
should be there waiting for the fulfilment of the promise, in 
obedience to the Saviour's command. 

But this injunction, however understood, must hive struck 
the minds of the apostles with great force. Jerusalem was to 
them a place of danger. At that very moment it was given, 
they were secretly gathered together with closed doors for fear 
of the Jews. Yet the appearance of their Divine Master in 
the midst of them, and the demonstrations he gave them of his 
power and of his Divine nature, by his resurrection from the 
dead, would naturally dispel their fear of man, and incline 
them to rely confidently upon him for protection. At least, 
we may suppose that with the command which he now gave 
them, he imparted the grace and strength requisite to fulfil it. 

John xx. 23. " Whose soever sins ye remit, they are 
remitted unto them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are 
retained." 

This declaration followed immediately • our Lord's act of 
breathing on the apostles, which he explained as symbolical 
of the descent upon them of the Holy Ghost. This connection 
between the two gifts indicates that the extraordinary power 
conferred by these words could be exercised only by the 
immediate inspiration of the Holy Ghost. There are many, 
however, who maintain that by these words the power of 
pardoning sin was imparted to the church and its ministers in 
all ages. But this is a great error. The Jews judged rightly 
that the power of pardoning sin belongs to God alone, Mark 
li. 7 ; Matt. ix. 2, 3 ; and therefore the fact that Jesus exer- 
cised that power, attesting it by miracles, proved his Divine 
mission. The Divine power to heal incurable diseases attested 
his Divine authority to pardon sins, the cause "of death and 
all our woes." And now having just given the apostles a 
commission like his own, and having symbolically imparted to 

* Luke uses the word 'ataBtrt to denote Paul's residence at Corinth, Acts 
xviii. 11, which certainly does not imply that he confined himself continually 
within the very walls of the city. See Rom. xv. 19 ; xvi. 1; 2 Cor. i. 1 ; xi. 
9, 10, which seem to prove that Paul visited the neighbourhood of Corinth. 
Xcepi&orQui, on the other hand, does not denote a. continued action; but simply 
the act of separating, departing, going away. Acts xviii. 1. 



EVENTS OF THE DAY OF CHRIST' S RESURRECTION. 513 

them the Holy Ghost as their infallible guide in the execution 
of that commission, he gives them also the power of pardoning 
sins, which he, as the Son of Man, had exercised on several 
occasions, and had power to exercise at all times in accordance 
with the Divine will. 

Accordingly they exercised many powers and gifts which 
were not transmitted to the bishops, elders, pastors, and 
teachers of the church in later ages. 1 Cor. xii. 7 — 11. Wit- 
ness the power exercised by Peter, in the case of Ananias and 
Sapphira, Acts v. ; of Paul in the case of Elymas, Acts xiii. 
5 — 12; and of the incestuous person mentioned in 1 Cor. 
v. 4, 5. Without the other extraordinary gifts, how is it 
possible that the power of forgiving sins should be exercised 
agreeably to the Divine will, and how, without the Divine 
approbation or sanction, could the power be exercised at all? 
"Who can remit sins but God alone?" The language is meta- 
phorical and borrowed from the relation between a creditor and 
his debtor. Matt. vi. 12. 

We need not, therefore, inquire more particularly into the 
power the Lord Jesus conferred upon his apostles by these 
words. It is enough to know that it was a power personal to 
them, Luke xxiv. 49, to be exercised by them at the opening 
of the new dispensation, and like other miraculous powers 
conferred on the apostles for the same purpose, not transmitted 
to later times. 

Luke xxiv. 50, 51. "And he led them out as far as to 
Bethany, and he lifted up his hands and blessed them." 

Up to this and the next following verse, we perceive no 
break whatever in the narrative, nor anything which indicates 
a change of place or of time. If we had only this Gospel, 
we could not avoid the conclusion that the preceding verses, 
from the 36th to the 49th, were an account of what transpired 
in the apartment in which Cleopas and his companion found 
the eleven, where Jesus also afterwards joined them. John 
does not tell us how the meeting broke up. xx. 24, 25. But 
Luke says, that after having finished his discourse with them, 
he led them out of the city as far as to Bethany. When they 
arrived at that place, "he lifted up his hands and blessed 
them, and it came to pass that while he was in the act of 
blessing them, he was parted [dcearrj) from them, and was 
carried up into heaven." 

Were we to read an account like this in a profane historian, 
such as Thucydides, Plutarch, or Livy, with the like circum- 
stances, we should not hesitate to understand the author as 
intending to connect all the events narrated with the time and 
places specified. It is usual, however, with commentators to 
65 



514 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

dislocate these verses from the preceding context, and apply 
them to the ascension, which the same Evangelist records in 
Acts i. 9. There are several particulars, however, which tend 
strongly to show that the two places, Luke xxiv. 51, and Acts 
i. 9, relate to different ascensions. 

(1.) The ascension which the Evangelist here describes took 
place at Bethany, which was at the foot of Mount Olivet on the 
east, fifteen furlongs, or nearly two miles, distant from Jeru- 
salem. John xi. 18. The ascension which Luke describes in 
Acts i. 10, was from Mount Olivet, a Sabbath day's journey, 
only 2000 cubits, or just five furlongs from Jerusalem, accord- 
ing to Josephus. 

(2.) If we compare the two accounts, and notice particularly 
the words spoken and the things done, and the circumstances 
under which they were done, it will seem very extraordinary 
that the same author should write two accounts of the same 
event so differently. In the gospel, it is said, Jesus led the 
apostles from Jerusalem to Bethany. In Acts i. 2, the 
author does not inform us from whence the Lord or the apostles 
came, nor whether they proceeded together from any place. 

(3.) In the Gospel, Luke does not mention the inquiry of 
the apostles concerning the kingdom, nor our Lord's reply to 
it. Indeed, he records nothing as having been said by them 
on that occasion. They appear to have been merely listeners; 
and if we may judge from the state of mind they were in at 
that time, we should not expect their thoughts would turn to 
that subject. Nor does the Evangelist mention the cloud or 
the angels, or their address to the apostles ; and yet he assures 
us, in the Acts, i. 2, that he brought his gospel down to the 
day in which the Lord (d.veh)<pdv}) was taken up. 

(4.) By the Gospel, it appears that the Lord lifted up his 
hands, and was in the act of blessing them, when he was sepa- 
rated from them, (dreary o\tl aurwu,) see Luke xxiv. 51, a 
little distance, and then ascended into heaven; nor does he 
say that the apostles saw him as he ascended. In the Acts, 
where his final ascension is described, we are not informed that 
he pronounced his blessing upon them, but his last words were 
a repetition of the commission he had given them, John xx. 21, 
and thereupon he ascended visibly, while they gazed after him 
with astonishment, never having seen him depart from them 
in that way before. There are other differences in the two 
accounts, which we may hereafter notice. 

(5.) Barnabas, the companion of Paul, whose character is 
described in Acts xiv. 4, 14; xi. 24, in his first epistle, which 
is undoubtedly genuine, has recorded in unequivocal language, 
his own belief upon this point, and without doubt the belief of 



EVENTS OE THE DAY OF CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. 515 

the churches in his day. In giving the reason why he and his 
fellow-Christians observed the eighth, (Ezek. xliii. 27, that is 
the first) day of the week, he says, "that Jesus rose from the 
dead on that day, and on the same day, after he had appeared 
to the disciples, he ascended into heaven."* 

His words are: "Therefore do we celebrate the eighth day 
with joy, because on that day Jesus both rose again from the 
dead, and having appeared, also ascended into heaven." 

This is very remarkable testimony. Barnabas was a cotem- 
porary with Luke, and both of them companions of Paul, and it 
is scarcely possible that either should be ignorant of the belief 
of the others upon this interesting question. This consideration 
is conclusive, if the genuineness of this epistle of Barnabas is 
well established. 

(6.) Finally: the temple services appointed for this day con- 
firm this conclusion. In 1 Cor. v. 7, the apostle Paul denomi- 
nates " Christ our Passover, sacrificed for us," and in 1 Cor. xv. 
20, 23, he denominates him the "first-fruits" and the first-fruits 
of them that slept. See Rom. xi. 16. In the former of these 
places, he has allusion to such passages as Exod. xii. 5, 46; 
Numb. ix. 12; Ps. xxxiv. 20; Isa. liii. 7. See John i. 29; 
Eph. v. 2; 1 Pet. i. 19; Rev. v. 6, 12. In the latter, he al- 
ludes to Lev. xxiii. 9 — 16, with which compare Lev. xxii. 19, 20. 
These types were closely connected in design or signification 
and fulfilment. On the evening preceding the Passover, it was 
the custom to go over the brook Kedron, and gather a sheaf of 
the first-fruits of the harvest and bring it to the priest as a 
wave-offering to the. Lord. This sheaf "was laid up before the 
Lord until the morrow after the Sabbath," when it was brought 
forth and waved by the priest. At, or near the time, and near 
the place, it is probable, where this sheaf was gathered, our 
Lord was apprehended. The sheaf was laid up, according to 
the ordinance, and kept until the Sabbath was past; and on 

* Aio zou ayojuev <r«y »/uifntv r»v hySuttv lie tm iv<ppc<rvv»v h a *zi o 'ivo-ove anTu* in vvcpuv 
hsu <pcivifot>Bug dvtfin tie tovs ovpuvwe- Upon this passage Menardus says : 

"Hie videtur dicere Christum aseendisse in coelum die Dominica, imo eodem 
die quo resurrexit, quod falsum est." And Hefele, in his edition of the Apos- 
tolic Fathers, notes on this passage: "Nonne Barnabas Dominum die Domi- 
nica ad ccelos aseendisse contendit?" Our Lord's final ascension, on the 40th 
day, occurred on the 5th day of the week (or Thursday) and of course the 
ascension which Barnabas refers to, was different in two respects : — it occurred 
on the 8th or 1st day of the week, and on the very day on which he arose 
from the dead. Menardus thinks, quod falsum est ; he was mistaken in this ; 
but it will be admitted, we presume, by all impartial persons, that Barnabas 
knew his own opinion, and also what was the common belief of the apostles 
and his fellow-Christians. The ancient Latin translation of this passage is : 
"Propter quod agimus diem octavum in laetationem, in quo et Jesus resurrexit 
a mortuis, et apparuitet ascendit in ccelos." 



516 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

this day — the day of our Lord's resurrection — it had been 
brought forth and waved by the priest as an offering of the 
first-fruits in the temple, before the Lord. This sheaf, as we 
suppose, was typical of the risen body of the Lord Jesus, and 
the waving it by the priest shadowed forth the presentation of 
the risen body of the Lord within the veil, in the upper sanc- 
tuary; by which he superseded and annulled the type which 
had been appointed to continue only until it should be thus 
fulfilled in his human person. If we reject this conclusion, we 
must allow a typical efficacy, or import, to the ceremonies and 
services performed in the temple on this day, among which was 
the sacrificing of a lamb, Lev. xxiii. 12, as well as the offering 
of the sheaf of the first-fruits, after the veil of the temple 
had been disparted, and the Levitical economy itself was done 
away. 

Luke xxiv. 51 — 53. "And it came to pass, that while he 
blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up into 
heaven, and they worshipped him and returned to Jerusalem 
with great joy, and were continually in the temple praising and 
blessing God." 

And so it was that (iv tco ebXoyetv abrov abrout;) while he was 
in the act of pronouncing his blessing upon them (dte$TYj dn 
abzcop), he withdrew a little space from them, see Luke xxiv. 51, 
and after that was borne upward to heaven : which' sight, and 
the other things they had seen and heard during that evening, 
so deeply impressed and convinced them of his Divine nature, 
that before leaving the place where they then stood, {Ttpooxuvrj- 
aavzeo) they offered unto him Divine worship. Luke iv. 8 ; Acts 
xxiv. 11 ; Heb. i. 6. Thereupon they returned the same evening 
from Bethany to Jerusalem; and from that day onward they 
appeared publicly in the temple praising and blessing God. 

Such appears to be the sense of these concluding verses. 
The Eva'ngelist is careful to say that the disciples returned 
from Bethany to Jerusalem with great joy ; as if to contrast 
the state of mind in which the Lord left them with the alarms, 
and sorrows, and fears, and doubts which had agitated and 
oppressed them during the day. How tranquilly and yet how 
confidently they afterwards spoke of the interview to Thomas ! 
John xx. 25. They no longer sought concealment through 
fear — although they held their private assemblies, John xx. 26, 
perhaps in obedience to the Saviour's express command. They 
may have even anticipated his appearance among them again, 
and with that hope may have frequently convened in private. 
Matt, xviii. 20. Perhaps the Evangelist had it also in view, to 
record the fulfilment of the Lord's promise to the eleven when 
they were last assembled together. "Yet a little while," said 



EVENTS THAT FOLLOWED THE LORD'S RESURRECTION. 517 

he, "and ye shall not see me, and again a little while and ye 
shall see me, because I go to the Father." John xvi. 16. 

These words, in themselves very plain, were to them very 
ohscure, verses 17, 18. This led him to explain his meaning. 
"Verily, verily I say unto you, ye shall weep and lament, 
but the world shall rejoice, and ye shall be sorrowful, but your 
sorrow shall be turned into joy " verse 20. And ye now there- 
fore have {shall have— see Mill, New Test.) sorrow, but I will 
see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no 
man taketh (no man shall take, Mill, New Test.) from you. 
We have seen how sorrowful the disciples were at the death of 
the Lord. Mark xvi. 10; Luke xxiv. 17; John xx. 11. But 
now their sorrow, as he predicted, was turned into joy. The 
Saviour's promise to them was now fulfilled. The fearful peril, 
John xvi. 21, and trial were past. Yet, if we notice carefully 
the words of the Saviour, John xvi. 16, their sorrow was to 
continue during his absence from them, and until his return 
from the Father. For the reason of his return to them, was 
not that he was about to die ; nor because his spirit was about 
to depart into the world of spirits, but because he was going to 
the Father — that is, was going to ascend in his body, to the 
Father : after which they should see him again. Thus under- 
stood, this passage confirms the interpretation before given of 
John xx. 17, and proves that our Lord, before he appeared to 
any of the disciples, except Mary Magdalen, had ascended to 
the Father. See notes on John xx. 17. 



CHAPTER XIV. 

Events that followed the Lord's resurrection.— Effect of the first interview of the 
Lord with the apostles after his resurrection.— Thomas's absence.— His in- 
credulty.— His presence.— The Lord's condescension.— The consequences of 
Thomas's demand.— The seven disciples at the sea of Tiberias.— The Lord's 
appearance.— The special reason of this appearance.— The Lord addresses 
Simon Peter.— Mistake of the brethren.— The appearance in Galilee.— Scope of 
the apostolic commission.— Infant baptism.— Appearance to James.— A para- 
phrase.— Return from Mount Olivet to Jerusalem.— John's baptism.— Miscon- 
ception of the apostles.— The Lord's ascension.— The apostles' employment 
until the Pentecost.— The day of Pentecost. 

EVENTS THAT FOLLOWED THE LORD'S RESURRECTION. 

Luke xxiy. 52. "And they worshipped him, and returned to 
Jerusalem with great joy." 

From this verse, we learn the effect of the first interview 
of the Lord with the apostles after his resurrection. It is just 



518 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

what we should have anticipated; for he certainly was not 
straitened in means for convincing them. By one appear- 
ance, Mary Magdalen was convinced. John xx. 16. One 
appearance and his familiar salutation, convinced the women 
he met in the morning, on their return from the sepulchre, 
Matt, xxviii. 9; and one view, as we shall soon see, left not a 
doubt in the mind of Thomas, the most incredulous of all the 
apostles; and why should not one appearance and such proofs 
of the identity of his person convince the rest? John, in speak- 
ing of this interview, says expressly, "that they rejoiced when 
they saw him;" which implies, that the distressing fears and 
doubts, which Luke particularly mentions, were all removed. 
They were convinced also of his Divine nature ; for they wor- 
shipped him. They worshipped him afterwards again when he 
appeared to them and other disciples in Galilee. Matt, xxviii. 
17. It is an error therefore to suppose that the apostles first 
began to worship him after his last visible ascension from Mount 
Olivet, Acts i. 9 — 12 ; for this would imply, that until then, 
they doubted his Divine nature — a supposition which is dis- 
proved by the verse we are considering. 

The place from whence they returned was Bethany, (verse 50 ;) 
and the time was the same evening, at the close of their wor- 
ship, (jipoaxuvrioavTet; abzov bneozpeipav.) Their joy was great 
— it was full. John xv. 11. It was the joy of triumph; their 
Lord and Master had conquered death. Fear was no longer 
possible. Accordingly the Evangelist adds in conclusion of his 
gospel; 

Luke xxiv. 53. " And were continually in the temple prais- 
ing and blessing God." 

He means that from the day of the Lord's resurrection for- 
ward, until they received the promise of the Father, (during 
which time they were commanded to remain at Jerusalem,) they 
openly frequented the temple and offered their praises and 
thanksgivings to God. A striking effect of the grace of Christ ! 
They no longer closed the doors when they met, for fear of the 
Jews.* 

* See note on John xx. 19. It is remarkable that when the disciples assem- 
bled on the eighth day after the Lord's resurrection, the apostles are not repre- 
sented as having closed the doors of the house or apartment where they met, 
for fear, but rather, as we may suppose, for privacy. The reason why the Evan- 
gelist mentions that the doors were shut on this occasion, is to show the sur- 
prising manner of the Lord's appearance to Thomas. It was one of the things 
which convinced him ; and it agreed perfectly with the manner of his appear- 
ance a week before, an account of which he had no doubt heard. Accordingly 
in describing the first appearance, the Evangelist tells us explicitly that the 
motive for shutting the doors was fear of the Jews, but in describing his second 
appearance he assigns no motive for the act, yet mentions the fact as in itself 
important for the reason already suggested. 



EVENTS THAT FOLLOWED THE LORD'S RESURRECTION. 519 

Although they were known to be the disciples of Jesus, and 
were surrounded by his enemies, and theirs for his sake, they 
appeared without disguise, in that very place, where they could 
not fail to be seen and known. 

Those who limit the application of this verse to the short 
interval between the Lord's visible ascension and the day of 
Pentecost, leave us to conjecture what were the emotions and 
employments of the apostles during the forty days following 
the resurrection. But no violence is done to the language by 
extending it, as we do, to the whole interval between the day of 
the Lord's resurrection and the Pentecost. On the contrary, 
it is the plain and obvious interpretation, and the only one 
which adequately represents the power of Christ over the minds 
and hearts of the apostles. See note on Luke xxiv. 49. 

John xx. 24. "But Thomas,* one of the twelve, called 
Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came." 

Consequently he was not one of those who accompanied the 
Lord to Bethany. He had not taken part in their worship, nor 
did he share in the joys of his fellow apostles. No cause is 
assigned for his absence. The fact only is stated. We may 
infer, perhaps, from what is said of him in John xi. 8 — 16, that 
he was a man of bold and resolute disposition, if not obstinate 
and self-willed. If he had heard the report of the Lord's re- 
surrection, he treated it, no doubt, as the others did at first, as 
an idle tale, unworthy of his attention. Luke xxiv. 11. How- 
ever this may be, 

John xx. 25. " The other disciples," or some of them, hav- 
ing casually found him, or sought him out perhaps, "said unto 
him, We have seen the Lord." It is probable much more was 
said than is here recorded. The words imply that the Lord's 
resurrection was spoken of. Judging from what we know of 
human nature we should not unreasonably suppose the wonder- 
ful facts recorded by Luke were circumstantially related to him 
— how and where they were assembled on the first day of the 
week — the hour when — the sudden entry of Cleopas and his 
companion — the story they told — the sudden and mysterious 
appearance of the Lord — the exhibition he made of the wounds 
in his hands, his feet, and his side — his partaking of food — 
their own emotions — the discourse he held with them, his lead- 
ing them out of the city to Bethany, and the manner in which 
he left them. It is probable also they repeated the very words 
he used while exhibiting to them his wounds. "Handle me 

* Thomas is a Hebrew name which signifies the same as Didymus ; a Greek 
■word or name ; so that Didymus is rather a translation of the proper name of 
this apostle than an addition to it. Both signify twin or twins. 



520 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

and see" — satisfy yourselves by your sense of feeling, if you 
do not trust your other senses; a test which they would natu- 
rally decline, as well through awe, as because they were already 
fully convinced of the reality of his presence.* It was to this 
test of the touch, Thomas in his reply plainly alludes. 

John xx. 25. "But he said unto them, except I [also] shall 
see in his hands the print of the nails, and even put my finger 
into the print of the nails and thrust my hand into his side, I 
will not believe," or more exactly, "I will never believe." 

In reading these words we should lay a strong emphasis on the 
pronoun I. Except- J shall see, &c, /will never believe. The 
meaning may be paraphrased thus: "You were quite too easily 
convinced of a matter so extraordinary as that you speak of. 
To convince me, I must not only see for myself the print of the 
nails in his flesh, as you say you saw it; but I must feel it with 
my finger, which you did not venture to do. Nor would this be 
enough ; I must lay my hand on his side, which you imagine 
you saw, having in it the very wound made by the soldier's 
spear. Had I been there, I certainly should not have declined 
any test possible for me to apply ; less than this should not 
have convinced you." 

We can hardly suppose that Thomas would have employed 
such peculiar terms to express his incredulity, or specified such 
extraordinary tests to insure his belief, unless the other disci- 
ples had related to him the particulars of their interview with 
the Lord, as we have supposed. Assuming that they did so, 
the reply of Thomas reflects upon them, on the one hand, as 
timid and credulous; and on the other, sets up by way of con- 
trast, his own superior courage and discretion. Thus con- 
sidered it is of a piece with what John says of him, xi. 8 — 16, 
when the Lord proposed to go into Judea, thereby exposing 
himself to the enmity of the Jews. All the other disciples, in- 
fluenced by their affection, endeavoured to dissuade him. 
Thomas, for some reason, was of a different mind, which he 
expressed in terms which showed both his sense of the danger 
and disregard of it. 

John xx. 26. "And after eight days, again his disciples 
were within, and Thomas with them: Then came Jesus, the 
doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be 
unto you." 

We are not to understand that this second appearance of the 
Lord to his male disciples, occurred eight days after Thomas 

* If we suppose they declined the test of touch, we may account for the addi- 
tional proof the Lord gave them, of taking food from their hands, and eating it 
before them, Luke xxiv. 41 — 43, a test or proof approximating to that he had 
proposed, which otherwise would have been quite unnecessary. 



THOMAS IS PRESENT. 521 

had thus expressed his unbelief; but eight days inclusive, after 
his first appearance, mentioned in verse 19. Yet it may have 
been nearly as long, for aught that is said, after the interview 
of Thomas with his fellow disciples, just spoken of. On this 
occasion Thomas was present. Considering the fact that the 
Lord had already appeared at five different times to some of the 
disciples, and had promised to appear to all of them in Galilee, 
it is not improbable that those who had seen him indulged the 
hope, that he would often appear to them, if not whenever they 
met; and this hope or expectation being known to Thomas, may 
have had some influence on his mind. Indeed, if we reflect how 
blind the disciples were to the future, and how ignorant they 
were of the actual posture of their nation, and of the Divine judg- 
ments which were soon to come upon the people, it is not im- 
probable they thought he intended before long, to establish his 
kingdom over them in outward glory; and consequently to re- 
turn and permanently to remain with them. However this may 
be, we may at least believe that Thomas, although sceptical and 
without any such hopes, was not free from misgivings. Or if 
the evidence does not warrant so favourable a judgment, we can 
confidently aflirm, that his Divine and compassionate Lord 
brought him, in spite of his gloomy and unreasonable disbelief, 
into the circle of his friends, that he might comply with his un- 
reasonable exactions. 

We remark again, that the doors of their apartment were 
shut and probably barred, as on the Sunday evening before. 
But it is not said that this was done through fear of the Jews. 
Comp. verses 19 — 26. Their fears, we have seen, were all dis- 
pelled. They appeared publicly in the temple, relying confi- 
dently upon the power and providence of the Saviour, by whose 
express command they made Jerusalem, for the time being, the 
place of their abode. On this occasion, the sudden and mys- 
terious appearance of the Lord did not occasion any fear or 
surprise to those who had seen him before. If it did, the fact 
is not mentioned, nor is it probable. All but Thomas were 
fully convinced that he was indeed the same compassionate 
Friend and Master they had ever known him. It was the de- 
sign of the Saviour, and if we may so say, his effort, at his first 
appearance to them, thoroughly to dispel their fears, and for 
this purpose he had led them forth from the city, as he had often 
done, to Bethany before he left them. His salutation, "Peace 
to you," uttered in his well-known voice, was sufficient to ward 
off fear and even surprise. Their presence and composure 
would naturally strengthen Thomas for the ordeal to which his 
incredulity had subjected him. 

We may imagine that instantly the Saviour's eye rested upon 
6Q 



522 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Thomas, and the eye of Thomas on him, and that alone was 
quite sufficient to carry conviction to his heart, before a word 
was spoken. But the address of the Saviour, and the repeti- 
tion of his unseemly words, one by one, must have awakened 
emotions of shame and confusion as well as sorrow. 

John xx. 27, 28. "Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither 
thy finger, and behold my hands ; and reach hither thy hand 
and thrust it into my side ; and be not faithless, but believing. 
And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my 
God." 

• The repetition of the very words of Thomas, was an indubi- 
table proof of the omniscience of Jesus, and consequently of 
his Divine nature. Hence the confession of Thomas. It was 
a similar display of this attribute which convinced Nathaniel of 
his exalted character even before the Lord entered publicly on 
his ministry. John i. 47 — 51. 

Some commentators regard this expression of Thomas as a 
mere exclamation, indicating his astonishment and nothing 
more; while others, among whom is Beza, regard it as the most 
decisive proof of the Deity of Jesus. We suppose, that Tho- 
mas meant to recognize his Divine, as well as his human nature, 
by this twofold designation. Regarded as a mere exclamation, 
such as we sometimes hear in common life, it would not be easy 
to exculpate the apostle from profaneness; but as the confession 
of his faith, it was a religious act. And why may we not so 
regard it? Of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, he had 
now a full and perfect conviction, without making trial of any 
of the tests he had rashly demanded. This fact alone proved 
his Divine nature. Rom. i. 4. It explained what he meant when 
he said, "I and my Father are one." "I came forth from the 
Father, and am come into the world. Again I leave the world 
and go to the Father." "And now, Father, glorify thou me 
with thyself, with the glory I had with thee before the world 
was." These sayings Thomas had heard, John xiv. 5, although 
he had not understood them. But the living person of Jesus, 
bearing in his flesh the very wounds of crucifixion, declared the 
sense, beyond a doubt, in which they were to be understood. 
Thomas did not need to be divinely inspired to appreciate the 
force of such a proof, any more than we do ; and his expression, 
thus regarded, is an energetic, full, and appropriating confes- 
sion of his heartfelt belief. This is proved by our Lord's reply 
to him. 

John xx. 29. "Jesus saith to him: Thomas, because thou 
hast seen me, thon hast believed. Blessed are they that have 
not seen and yet have believed." 

Surely, if this hitherto doubting or disbeliving disciple ex- 



FHE lokd's condescension. 523 

pressed nothing more than his surprise or amazement, the 
omniscient Saviour would not have accepted it as a confession 
of his belief. 

It is remarkable, that the Evangelist records nothing more 
of this interview than the words quoted'. He does not say how 
long it continued, nor how it was terminated, nor what passed 
between Thomas and his fellow disciples after the Lord left 
them. But if we may suppose that he appeared on this occa- 
sion solely for the conviction of Thomas, what an exhibition of 
grace to this doubting and perhaps wayward disciple ! And 
what an impressive illustration of the character which the 
apostle Paul ascribes to him, Heb. iv. 15, encouraging the belief, 
that although he does not now visibly exhibit himself to his 
doubting disciples as he did then, yet he is not unmindful of 
their weaknesses and frailties, nor remiss in the use of the 
means best suited' to remove them. We pass on to the con- 
cluding sentence, which may be more literally expressed thus : 
Blessed are those not seeing (of fiy Idovre^) yet believing (xat 

These words prove that belief in the resurrection of Jesus is 
an essential article of the Christian faith. On this ground the 
apostle Paul says, without qualification or reserve, if Christ be 
not risen, our faith in him is vain, and the preaching of the 
gospel is bearing false witness. 1 Cor. xv. 14, 15. Up to this 
moment, Thomas did not believe the fact of the Lord's resur- 
rection, and his unbelief involved, as a necessary consequence, 
that his Lord and Master was a deceiver. But Thomas was 
one of those whom he had chosen, and could not therefore be 
given over to perdition. John vi. 70; xvii. 12. Yet we infer 
from these words, that through his unbelief, he failed of a 
degree of blessedness which would otherwise have been within 
his reach. 

It is more important, however, to notice the great principle 
which our Lord here declares, the principle which in fact dis- 
tinguishes the dispensation of the Holy Spirit, from that of our 
Lord's personal ministry. The effect of ocular or sensible evi- 
dence had been tried upon the whole Jewish people, and had 
failed of its purpose. John xii. 37 — 10. God had, as it were, 
just concluded a great experiment upon a large nation, for the 
information of all creatures, one object of which was to prove, 
that it was not in the nature of evidence, however miraculous, 
though subjected to the senses of men, to beget faith in them. 
A new agency was necessary, by which this principle could be 
imparted to fallen man as God's gift, by means more in har- 
mony with the general order of the Divine government and 
that economy or order of things which was about to ensue. 



524 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

The fact of the resurrection was to-be established at that time 
for all ages, until the end of the world and the second coming 
of the Lord, mainly through the very testimony which Thomas 
had rejected; and it was because Thomas himself was one of 
those, through whose testimony the world would be required to 
believe, that the Lord appeared to him especially to remove his 
doubts. Yet if it was right for Thomas to reject the testimony 
of his fellow-disciples, whom he knew to be as credible and 
trustworthy as himself, it would be right for others afterwards 
to reject his testimony as well as theirs to the same fact, 
without the other evidence which he demanded. Consequently, 
to perpetuate the knowledge of the fact of the Lord's resurrec- 
tion, recourse must be had to a continued miraculous inter- 
vention, from age to age, upon the demand of each individual; 
in other words, the age of miracles could never cease, or rather 
miracles would cease to be miracles, by becoming the established 
order of things, and consequently lose their effect. Such a de- 
mand in reality denies to God the right to establish the order 
of things, in which we live, without relinquishing his authority 
to command our belief upon such evidence, as we receive and 
act upon as sufficient on all other subjects. Yet a dispensation 
of miraculous evidence, as has been remarked, had been tried 
upon a whole nation, without any saving effect. Judging from 
observation and experience, and from what we know of the 
human heart, we have no reason to believe, that if the miracu- 
lous powers exercised by the apostles under their first com- 
mission, had been continued in the Church until the present 
day, they would, without the agency of the Holy Spirit, have 
been attended with any better effect upon the Gentiles, than 
they had upon the Jews during the personal ministry of our 
Lord. Luke xvi. 31. 

These considerations show the futility of the argument of 
infidels, "that an infallible revelation can come to man through 
the senses alone — that it cannot even be recorded without losing 
its infallibility, or be transmitted even from a single generation 
without becoming at once a fallible record, and therefore falli- 
ble evidence." We may concede the proposition, and inquire 
what does it prove ? Does it prove that God should have 
established a perpetual dispensation of miraculous evidence 
addressed to the senses of men, in order to authenticate his 
words? He made sufficient trial of such evidence, without 
producing any reforming or saving influence upon those who 
enjoyed the advantages of it. Does it prove that historical or 
moral evidence, such as men act upon in matters of private 
or social interest, cannot be made effectual by the Holy Spirit 
to accomplish the Divine purposes, by working faith in men, 



THE SEVEN DISCIPLES AT THE SEA OF TIBERIAS. 525 

and thereby uniting them to Christ? This inquiry needs no 
answer. Even philosophy teaches us that there are other and 
surer means of attaining the truth than the bodily senses. All 
men habitually act in their most important concerns upon the 
testimony of others, and that, too, without any spiritual agency 
or Divine influence to enlighten or incline them. And such 
evidence would be sufficient in the concerns of religion also, if 
the hearts of men were willing to receive it. Hence the office 
of the Holy Spirit is not to magnify evidence, nor to incline 
men to believe, without reasonable and sufficient grounds of 
belief; but to prepare or incline their hearts to receive Divine 
truth upon such evidence as effectually convinces them in their 
worldly concerns. See Matt. xvi. 1 — 4. 

But why, it may be inquired, is it more blessed to believe 
upon the testimony of others than upon the evidence of our 
senses? As a general proposition, having respect to all kinds 
of truth, it cannot be affirmed, nor is it what the Saviour 
intended; but restricted to the particular fact of our Lord's 
resurrection it is not difficult to show the reason : For a heart- 
felt belief of this fact, by those not having ocular evidence of 
it, is wrought by the Holy Spirit, John vi. 29, 44, 45, whose 
office it is to do much more than influence the understanding. 
Were his work to end there, no saving effect would be pro- 
duced. The Holy Spirit gives permanency and strength to 
the faith which he originates, and makes it the means of 
renewing the whole man. Even the apostles, and those other 
disciples who had ocular and sensible evidence of the Lord's 
resurrection, had as great need of the Spirit's renewing ener- 
gies as others, who believed on other grounds. Herein then 
consists chiefly the blessedness of all those who believe, in 
which Thomas no doubt also shared, but in a smaller measure, 
perhaps, on account of his unreasonable and sinful doubts. It 
is the Holy Spirit's work to make the truth efficacious, James 
i. 18; John xvi. 8, the beginning of which, Philip, i. 6; Rom. 
viii. 28—30; 2 Cor. i. 22; Eph. i. 14, makes their salvation 
sure. 

John xxi. 1. "After these things Jesus showed himself 
again to the disciples at the sea of Tiberias, and on this wise 
showed he himself." 

The manifestations before spoken of were made in Judea, and 
in or near Jerusalem. That of which the Evangelist now 
speaks, occurred in Galilee. The time of it is not stated, but 
we may infer that the feast of the Passover was ended, and 
that the disciples generally had left Judea for their homes in 
Galilee, where the Lord had promised to meet them. Matt. 
xxviii. 7, 10; xxvi. 32; Mark xiv. 28. 



526 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

It would be fruitless to inquire why he appointed Galilee as 
the place of gathering for all his disciples. Perhaps he did it 
because most of his disciples were from that province. Acts 
ii. 7. It is not improbable that the apostles mentioned in this 
chapter had gone thither in obedience to this command, or 
were on their way from Jerusalem to the mountain Jesus had 
appointed. Matt, xxviii. 16. The manner of the Lord's 
appearance on this occasion, and the circumstances of it, are 
related with much particularity, for some reason not explained. 
It does not fall within the scope of these notes to enter 
minutely into the contents of the chapter, the style of which 
is very peculiar. We observe in general, that John, who was 
present and an eye-witness of what he relates, is the only 
Evangelist who mentions this appearance. Thomas, the doubt- 
ing disciple, was one of the party. Nathaniel, it is probable, 
is the apostle elsewhere called Bartholomew. Peter and James 
the brother of John, and two other disciples, whose names are 
not mentioned, made up the party. Some of them — probably 
all of them — were fishermen by calling, and to supply their 
necessities (and perhaps those of other disciples, while waiting 
for their Lord's appearance) they resorted to their former avo- 
cation. They entered the little vessel at evening, as we infer 
from the narrative, verses 3 and 4. At day-dawn the Lord 
appeared to them, standing on the shore, but was not recog- 
nized at first by any of the party, either by the eye or the ear, 
owing to the dimness of the light, or the distance, which was 
not less than a hundred yards, or eighteen rods, even if he 
stood at the water's edge. His inquiry — Have ye any meat? 
was understood by them to refer to fish, as is plain from the 
sixth verse.* 

The haul they made at his bidding, being very extraordi- 
nary, if not miraculous, was the means of his recognition. 
Naturally would it remind them of a similar occurrence near 
the beginning of our Lord's ministry, which had greatly aston- 
ished them. Luke v. 4 — 11. John was the first to know him. 
He tells his thought to Peter, perhaps in the hearing of the 
others, but that is not said. Immediately they made for the 
land, but the ardour of Peter did not allow him to wait the slow 
progress of the boat. Girding himself hastily with his fisher's 
coat,f he plunged into the water and swam ashore, leaving his 
fellow-disciples to draw in the net. 

* Tlpoo-qny-iov from 7rpoo-<pa.yuv signifies whatever is eaten with bread, especially 
fish. The word tynptov (or o-^mtov) in verse ninth is translated fish. The word 
o^ov from \-\oa coqao signifies 7r*v to nvpi x,snsurK&jit.o-/uiVov tU sdWav. See Beza in 
loco. 

f The word is esmfyra?, which signifies commonly an overcoat (to Ijuatiov Wavu. 
Suidas Lex. See 1 Sam. xviii. 4 in LXX.) Some suppose that it means shirt 



THE SILENCE OF THE DISCIPLES. 527 

We are not told whether Peter approached the Lord before 
the others landed; or if he did, what words, if any, passed 
between them. When all had come to the land, they saw a fire 
of coals and a fish laid thereon. At the command of Jesus 
other fish were brought, and their morning meal prepared, con- 
sisting of bread and fish. But whence the bread? Was it 
miraculously produced ? Although it is not expressly affirmed, 
we regard the whole preparation of the repast as miraculous, 
and designed to remind them of their first call to discipleship, 
Luke v. 4 — 7, and thus to add a proof of another kind con- 
firmatory of the proofs already given of the identity of his 
person. 

Until this time not a word is spoken to him by any of the 
apostles, if we except their answer to his inquiry from the 
shore, before they knew him. The majesty of his person 
(Erasmus suggests) had taken from them their usual confi- 
dence. We prefer, however, another explanation. Evidently 
they regarded him as they would have regarded an angel come 
from the invisible world. He had spoken of himself as being 
no longer with them. Luke xxiv. 44. A feeling of awe per- 
vaded their minds, rendering them incapable of familiar inter- 
course with him. Hence, as we suppose, the reason, in part, 
of the manner in which he approached Cleopas and his com- 
panion. Hence, too, the disciples are represented almost 
always as silent when conscious of his presence. 

It is remarkable, that neither Matthew nor Mark records a 
word as having been addressed to him by any of the disciples 
after his resurrection. Nor does Luke, in his Gospel, with the 
exception of the words of Cleopas. Mary Magdalen could 
tranquilly address him, while she supposed him to be a gar- 
dener ; but after she knew him she could only exclaim, " Rab- 
boni." Besides what Mary said, the Evangelist John records 
only the confession of Thomas, and the answers of Peter to the 
thrice repeated question, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou 
me?" and his inquiry concerning John, hereafter to be no- 
ticed. 

At the meal thus miraculously prepared, not a word was 
spoken by any of the apostles, though they received the food 
from the Lord's hand, verse 13. "None of them," says John, 
" presumed so much as to inquire of him, who he was, for they 
knew him," and regarded him a visitor from the heavenly 
worlds. 

in this place, because in the next verse it is said, Peter was -naked, which is 
not a sufficient reason. In his eagerness to get to the shore Peter would natu- 
rally be content to put on his outer garment only, even if he were accustomed 
to wear others underneath it, and they were at hand. 



528 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

John xxi. 14. " This is now the third time that Jesus 
showed himself to his disciples after that he was risen from the 
dead." 

The Evangelist means, this was the third appearance of the 
Lord to the apostles whom he had chosen as the witnesses of his 
resurrection. We have seen, he appeared (1) to Mary Mag- 
dalen. John xx. 17; Mark xvi. 9. (2.) To the company of 
women returning from the sepulchre. Matt, xxviii. 9, 10. 
(3.) To Peter. Luke xxiv. 34; 1 Cor. xv. 5. (4.) To Cleopas and 
his companion. Luke xxiv. 15. (5.) To the eleven with the 
exception of Thomas, and perhaps Peter, on the evening of his 
resurrection. Luke xxiv. 36 ; John xx. 19. (6.) To the eleven, 
when Thomas was present. John xx. 24. Consequently, this 
appearance, which John calls the third, was in fact the seventh 
if all are enumerated, but the third if we take into account only 
the appearances to the apostles collectively. To such only does 
John refer in this verse ; for he excludes from his enumeration 
the appearance to Mary Magdalen which he had also men- 
tioned. John xx. 16, 17. 

The circumstances of this appearance were so convincing that 
not a doubt could remain upon their minds, if any existed be- 
fore, verse 12. We note particularly the manner of his appear- 
ance at a distance — his calling out to them from the shore — 
the question he put to them, making the impression upon their 
minds, perhaps, that he wished to buy of them. Then the mira- 
culous draught of fishes, and when they reached the shore, the 
fire, the fish, the bread, and, more than all, his familiar form 
and countenance, the tones of his voice, his actions, his whole 
deportment — and perhaps also the very wounds of crucifixion 
still appearing fresh in his hands and his feet. Such were the 
grounds of their judgment by which we may know that they 
could not be mistaken or deceived. 

We must not suppose, however, that this appearance of the 
Lord was merely or chiefly to convince the apostles of the reality 
of his resurrection, although it served that end. We may apply 
the same observation to that last noticed. John xx. 24. 

Peter as well as Thomas had grievously sinned, and it was 
the kindness and condescension of the Lord which determined 
the time and the circumstances of both these appearings. It 
was to show this, that the Evangelist has so minutely recorded 
them. 

John xxi. 15. "So when they had dined, Jesus saith to 
Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than 
these ? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord. Thou knowest that I 
love thee. He said unto him, Feed my lambs. 

16. " He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of 



PETER'S PERSONAL HISTORY FORETOLD. 529 

Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord: thou 
knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 

17. "He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, 
lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him 
the third time, Lovest thou me ? And he said unto him, Lord, 
thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus 
saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 

18. "Verily, verily, I say unto thee, "When thou wast young, 
thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but 
when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and 
another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest 
not. 

19. "This spake he, signifying by what death he should 
glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto 
him, Follow me." 

This conversation having passed in the presence of the 
other apostles, none of them could doubt the corporeal presence 
of the Lord Jesus. But it is chiefly important to observe how 
tenderly the Lord reminded Peter of his great sin; how gra- 
ciously he assures him of pardon by restoring him to his office, 
and instructing him in his duty! How comforting, also, to 
this apostle was the assurance that henceforth, during a long 
service, he at least, whatever others might do, should remain 
faithful even unto death : — that not even the pains of crucifixion 
should thereafter extort another denial of his Lord. Such 
information is seldom given to man. Peter was the only one 
of the apostles to whom his personal history was foretold. His 
martyrdom is foreshown, as a proof and example of his future 
fidelity — not to gratify curiosity, although it had the effect of 
exciting it in the mind of this apostle. 

John xxi. 20, 21. "Then Peter turning about, seeth the 
disciple whom Jesus loved following, &c. Peter seeing him, 
saith to Jesus, Lord, (ouzo^ oe re) what shall this man do?" — 
or rather, "This man — what?" that is, what shall he suffer? 

The questions the Lord had put to Peter, and the answers 
drawn from him, emboldened him voluntarily to make this 
inquiry, which is the first any of the Evangelists have recorded. 
It was characteristic of this apostle, when impelled by his 
curiosity, to break through restraints which were felt by the 
others. But it was not for Peter to know what would be the 
end of John's earthly career. His curiosity was untimely. 
Our Lord's reply was constructed so as to withhold all infor- 
mation except that he himself was the sovereign Disposer of 
John's life. 

John xxi. 22. "If I will that he tarry till I come (u tt/wc 
as) what is that to thee? Follow thou me." 
67 



530 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

As if he had said: If it be my pleasure to continue John in 
my service on earth until I come again in my kingdom, that 
concerns thee not. Let it be enough for thee to know thy 
duty and thy end. 

This answer gave occasion to a false report among the 
brethren, which John thought it necessary to correct. The 
seven who heard the words of Jesus, repeated them perhaps 
incorrectly to others, who understood them as a positive affirma- 
tion that the beloved disciple should not die ; thus bringing his 
end into marked contrast with the predicted end of Peter. It 
was a misrepresentation of the Saviour, and calculated to cast 
discredit on his prophetical character at the death of John. 
For this reason, John is careful to record the very words of 
Jesus, as the best means of correcting the error; and this was 
probably one of the reasons for adding the last sixteen verses 
to this chapter. 

John xxi. 23. "Then went this saying abroad among the 
brethren that that disciple should not die; yet Jesus said not 
unto him [Peter] he [John] shall not die, but [he said simply] 
If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" 

Dr. Adam Clarke says, that for nearly eighteen centuries the 
greatest men in the world have been puzzled with this passage. 
We doubt whether the difficulty has been felt so long ; and, 
indeed, that there is any difficulty in the passage itself, when 
considered in its proper connections.* 

Had these brethren thought that the coming of which the 
Lord spoke, was not to occur until after the lapse of many cen- 
turies, it is not to be supposed they could have put such an 
interpretation upon his words. But assuming, as the early 
Christians did, that his advent in his kingdom was near, and 
that it might be expected at latest, within a period not greatly 
exceeding an ordinary lifetime, they might easily convert the 
hypothetical expression, "If I will that he tarry till I come," 
into an affirmation of the purpose. Had they believed, as 
Dr. Whitby and other modern divines have taught the Church, 
that a thousand or two thousand or three thousand years, at 
least, must intervene between the Lord's ascension into heaven 
and his final coming, they would have found it difficult to 
reconcile the assurance of so long a life with the favour, in 
other respects, shown to the beloved disciple. To live so long 
in the body, under infirmities ever increasing with years, and 

* Fra sinus found no difficulty in explaining the passage or accounting for 
the mistake of the brethren. He paraphrased it thus: Ortus est igitur ex 
hujus occasione sermonis, inter discipulos rumor, quod discipulus ille, Jesu 
dilectus, non esset moriturus violenta. morte, sed permansurus in vita, donee 
rediret Dominus, &c, quod omnes turn brevi futurum opinabantur, §c. 



THE APPEARANCE IN GALILEE. 531 

to be absent all the while from the Lord, would not have been 
esteemed by them such a token of love as the gracious Saviour 
would show to this highly-favoured disciple. 

We observe here the same reserve that characterized all our 
Lord's replies concerning the times and seasons. The supposi- 
tion or hypothesis which he makes, that such might be his will, 
for aught that Peter could know, implied that his advent might 
occur within the lifetime of some of that generation. The idea 
thus hypothetically admitted is utterly irreconcilable with the 
view now generally entertained of a thousand years to precede 
the second coming of Christ. 

Matt, xxviii. 16. "[Then] the eleven went away into Gali- 
lee into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them." 

The time of this gathering is not mentioned. We know not 
whether it occurred before or after the Lord appeared to the 
seven disciples at the sea of Tiberias. If we may assume that 
it was on this occasion the Lord appeared to more than five 
hundred brethren at once, we may infer perhaps from 1 Cor. 
xv. 5, 6, that it occurred not long after his first appearance to 
the twelve. Matthew, it is true, mentions in this verse only 
the eleven disciples, but from verses 7th and 10th of this chap- 
ter, we learn that all the brethren and disciples were commanded 
to assemble there for this meeting. See Matt. xxvi. 32.* 

Nor does the Evangelist inform us of the manner of his ap- 
pearance, whether his approach was (more humano) natural or 
miraculous, nor does he intimate that the Lord exhibited at that 
time, as he had done on former occasions, any proofs of the 
identity of his person. But whether or not, 

Matt, xxviii. 17. "When they [that is the eleven apostles 
and the other disciples] saw him, they worshipped him: but 
some doubted." 

The apostles and some others of the disciples had, as we know, 
seen him before. They not only knew him, but were so perfectly 
convinced of his Divine nature, that they rendered him their 
religious homage and worship. But some of those present (of 
os subaudi tcov rcapoprajv) doubted whether he was really Jesus. 
These, it is probable, were disciples to whom he had not ap- 
peared before; and this fact, that some of them doubted, justi- 

* Tlpcctgm in this verse seems to be used in contrast with iituntofTri^msu in 
the preceding verse; as if the Lord had said: "I the Shepherd am about to be 
smitten here in Jerusalem, and you the sheep in consequence of it will be 
scattered abroad. Yet the enemy will fail of his object: for I shall rise from 
the dead, and after I am risen, scattered though you be, I will lead you forth, 
I will conduct you into Galilee and there gather you again." The words of 
our translation, "I will go before you," in the sense of preceding in a jour- 
ney, are quite inconsistent with the manner of our Lord's being after his 
resurrection. 



532 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

fies the inference that there was nothing extraordinary in the 
manner of his approach or appearance.* 

Matt, xxviii. 18. "And Jesus came and [npoae^dcou, ap- 
proaching or drawing near] spoke unto them, saying, All power 
is given unto me in heaven and earth." 

We may imagine the scene. A large company of disciples 
assembled at or near a mountain, waiting for the appearance of 
Jesus. As soon as they saw him they prostrated themselves 
(Tipoaexuvrjoav) before him — that being the manner in which 
adoration was commonly rendered in the East. After that he 
comes nearer and addresses them in the words quoted, which we 
may regard as responsive to their worship : as if he had said, 
"I accept your worship; it is rightly rendered to me: for all 
power in heaven and in earth is committed unto me." He then 
gave them his commission : 

Matt, xxviii. 19. " Go ye therefore and teach all nations, 
baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and 
of the Holy Ghost : — teaching them to observe all things what- 
soever I have commanded you, and lo, I am with you always 
unto the end of the world." 

Neither Luke nor John mentions the commission. Mark 
does, but without note of the time when or of the place where 
it was given ; he adds, however, particulars which Matthew 
omits. We assume that both Evangelists had in view one and 
the same transaction : for we cannot suppose the Lord formally 
and solemnly commissioned the apostles for the same object 
twice. We infer, also, that the commission was given in 
Galilee, on this occasion ; for the Evangelist records nothing 
else as having been said at that time. How long it was before 
his final ascension from the Mount of Olives, we have no means 
of determining. It seems probable, however, from the passage 
under consideration, and the context, that the act was per- 
formed in the presence of many disciples, who had come 

* Some critics, among whom is Beza, suppose the true reading is ob Si \Skt- 
<rx<ra.v instead of ol fe iSnm-ctactv, which would make the passage signify nor did they 
doubt. The change proposed is merely from u into /, which in the uncial let- 
ters used in the ancient MSS. would be easily done by dropping the little hook 
at the top of the r (Ol Or.) But the most ancient MSS. support the common 
reading, and the proposed change rests entirely upon conjecture. Nor is it at 
all necessary to the consistency of the Evangelists or the credibility of the ac- 
counts they have left. Why should it be thought incredible that some of the 
many disciples who met on that occasion, to whom he then appeared for the 
first time, 1 Cor. xv. 6, had their doubts, as all the apostles bad, before they 
had other proofs of the reality of the Lord's resurrection, besides his mere 
appearance. Luke xxiv. 39 — 41 ; John xx. 20, 24, 25. But their doubts were 
all ultimately removed -by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of 
Pentecost, and the miraculous powers conferred on the apostles. Had it not 
been so, Paul would not have referred to them, 1 Cor. xv. 6, as living wit- 
nesses of the fact. 



SCOPE OP THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. 533 

together at that place by the command of the Lord, to be 
•witnesses as well of his resurrection, as of this act. But we 
learn from Luke xxiv. 49 and Acts i. 4, that they were not to 
enter upon their work until they should be endued with power 
by the Holy Spirit. According to Mark the commission was 
thus expressed : 

Mark xvi. 15, 16. "And he said unto them: Go ye into 
all the world and preach the gospel to every creature : He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved: He that believeth not 
shall be damned."* 

The difference between the commission thus worded, and its 
form as given by Matthew, is merely verbal. The effect of 
preaching would be to make disciples, (fiad^reoecv) and these 
disciples they were commanded to baptize upon the profession 
of their belief. Acts viii. 37. The scope of the commission is 
otherwise expressed in Matt. xxiv. 14: "This gospel of the 
kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto 
all nations." But observe, it was not promised, for their 
encouragement, that it should everywhere be received with the 
obedience of faith. The promise was, "he that believeth shall 
be saved;" and even this promise was not made to the preach- 
ers, but to their disciples. 

The actual result of their labours, under this commision, was 
the organization, by means of instruction and baptism, of visi- 
ble societies, within which, as withm the ancient Jewish Church, 
the Holy Spirit for the most part performed and still performs 
his work — sealing it with Divine power and efficacy. Thus 
the true Church is formed, of which the Lord himself is the 
architect, Matt. xvi. 17, 18, against which the gates of death 
shall not prevail, f 

* The last eight verses of Mark's Gospel are remarkably compendious. The 
12th verse, we have seen, relates to the day of the Lord's resurrection. It is 
impossible to fix the time of the 13th and 14th verses with precision. The 
four verses following, it has been suggested, apply to the gathering of the 
apostles and brethren in Galilee. The 19th verse relates to the Lord's final 
ascension, and corresponds with Acts i. 9. The last verse is a summary of the 
Acts of the Apostles. 

According to this distribution, we paraphrase the 15th verse thus : 

"And he said unto them, [afterwards, when he met the eleven in Galilee 
with five hundred other brethren, 1 Cor. xv. 6,] Go ye into all the world and 
preach the gospel to every creature," &c. 

f The Lord represents himself as the builder of his own Church. " I will 
build my Church." The rock or foundation upon which he declares he will 
build it is the work of the Holy Spirit, revealing to men the mystery of his 
person, as "Christ the Son of the living God." The words (\m tauth <m 7nrpn) 
"upon this rock," do not refer to Peter, nor yet simply to Christ himself, but 
to the work of the Holy Spirit, who taught Peter the mystery of the person 
of the Christ, as God and man. Against the Church which is thus being 
formed, the gates of hell, (cjh?) that is, of death, shall not prevail. Although 
the members of it have been passing from age to age into the invisible world, 




534 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

This view of the commission does not detract from the 
dignity and importance of the Christian ministry. It was 
appointed for the gathering of the materials out of which the 
Lord selects such as he pleases, to be builded into his spiritual 
house, and it is honour enough that it is divinely appointed for 
any purpose. To change the figure : The dignity and service 
to which he called the apostles was to be fishers of men, Luke 
v. 10; Mark i. 17; Matt. iv. 19; and the result of their 
labours he set forth in the parable of the net cast into the sea. 
Matt. xiii. 47—49. See 1 Cor. iii. 12—15. 

It results also from what has been said, that baptism is not 
a saving ordinance, but a seal of discipleship. In Mark xvi. 16, 
it is connected with belief. " He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved"— language which is applicable only to those 
capable of exercising belief in the gospel, and by some it is 
restricted to such. The language of Matt, xxviii. 19, however, 
is broad enough to include others. The infants of Israel, at 
the exodus from Egypt, were baptized in the sea and the cloud, 
as well as the adults, 1 Cor. x. 1, 2, and the baptism of John 
was appointed for all the people, Luke iii. 21 ; and the teaching 
and baptism the Lord appointed were for all nations, and for 
all of every nation capable of receiving them. This command, 
the apostles would naturally interpret by these national exam- 
ples, and if there were a doubt on the question, the analogy of 
circumcision would be decisive. Col. ii. 11. 

One use of the baptism of infants is to insure their disciple- 
ship — if they should live to majority — by uniting them to the 
visible Church, thus bringing them within the sphere of the 
ordinary operations of the Holy Spirit. If removed by death, 
before moral agency, with the seal of the covenant upon them, 
we doubt not that they are elect according to the foreknowledge 
of God; renewed by the Holy Spirit, aggregated to the Church 
of the first born, and will be raised in glory at the second 
coming of the Lord.* If they are spared to the age of maturity, 

(aJW) yet upon the completion of their body, the gates of death shall yield 
them up, and they shall appear in visible glory with Christ at their head. 
1 John iii. 2. Excommunication may cut off such members from the visible 
Church, as it did many at the Reformation from Popery, but it cannot affect 
their relations to the invisible Church, nor to Christ their head. 

* Those "who deny the premillennial advent of Christ and the first, or sepa- 
rate and earlier resurrection of the Elect Church, find it impossible to explain 
the use of infant baptism in the case of those who die in infancy before they 
are capable of moral action ; without maintaining that all unbaptized infants 
dying before actual sin are not saved : For if all such, whether baptized or 
unbaptized, are raised at the same time to the same glory, what benefit does 
baptism confer ? And what profit was circumcision to infants in Israel, dying 
in infancy with the seal of the covenant upon them, if the uncircumcised male 
infants dying in infancy, whether Jew or Gentile, are indiscriminately to be 



THE DISCIPLES ENDOWED WITH MIRACULOUS POWERS. 535 

their baptism, without faith, will be of no avail. "For he that 
believeth not," being capable of belief, "shall be damned." 
Mark xvi. 16. 

Mark xvi. 17, 18. "And these signs shall follow them that 
believe : in my name they shall cast out devils, they shall speak 
with new tongues: they shall take up serpents, and if they 
drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay 
their hands on the sick and they shall recover," 

Assuming, as we do, that these words were uttered on the 
occasion of our Lord's appearance in Galilee, when some of the 
disciples, who had not seen him before, doubted, they furnished 
a sure means of convincing them. These disciples could not 
doubt that they saw a person, or that they heard him speak, 
nor had they any doubt of what he said. They doubted whether 
he who appeared and spoke to them, was Jesus, who had been 
crucified. The conferring of such powers upon the apostles — 
especially the gift of new tongues on the day of Pentecost, was 
a sure proof not only of his resurrection from the dead, but of 
his Divine nature. A proof of this kind was quite agreeable to 
our Lord's method, John xiv. 29 ; xiii. 19 ; xvi. 4, and such we 
suppose was one reason of making this prediction or promise. 
The Acts of the apostles show how it was fulfilled, Acts xvi. 
16 — 18; viii. 7; xix. 15; ii. 4; xxviii. 3; v. 15, 16; iii. 7; 
nor can we reasonably question its eifect. The events of the 
day of Pentecost were marvellous without example, and proved 
beyond cavil the living energies of him who predicted them. 

Besides removing the doubts of those disciples, the miraculous 
endowments here promised and soon afterwards conferred, were 
of the utmost importance, as we shall hereafter see, in laying 
the foundations of the Church. They aroused and fixed the 
attention of Jews and Gentiles. Acts ii. 7, 8; viii. 6, 13; 
xiv. 11; xiii. 12; xxviii. 3 — 6. They attested the veracity 
and authority of the apostles. As they were exercised in the 
name of Jesus, in proof of his resurrection and ascension, they 
challenged belief in those facts and obedience to his commands, 
and thus contributed to the rapid formation of the visible 
Church. Acts ii. 41; iv. 4, 32; vi. 5, 7. But it was not in 
their nature to do more. Nor was their long continuance 
necessary. For churches being thus formed, and being made 
depositaries of the truth, became witnessing communities capable 
of attracting the observation of Jews and Gentiles, and of 

raised at the same time to the same degree of glory? And what can be the 
meaning of God's declaration to Abraham: "The uncircumcised man-child 
shall be cut off from his people: He hath broken my covenant?" It cannot 
mean he shall die an early natural death : for the case we are considering is 
that of a circumcised man-child dying in infancy. 




536 



NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 





preaching the gospel for a witness to the people among whom 
they were planted. 

The next appearance of the Lord was to James, as we learn 
from 1 Cor. xv. 7 : but of this we know nothing more than the 
fact. The time, the place, the circumstances, are nowhere 
recorded. The motive of it was probably personal to that 
apostle. The same may be said of the Lord's appearance to 
Peter; and for that reason nothing more than the fact in either 
case is noted. The only other appearance of which we have a 
particular account, is mentioned in Acts i. 4 — 9, to which we 
now proceed. 

The appearances already spoken of, had fully convinced the 
apostles of the reality of the resurrection of their Lord and 
Master. The proofs they had of it were many and infallible. 
Acts i. 3. They were as fully qualified as men could be, to 
bear testimony to the fact; and this final appearance was not 
necessary, nor was the especial design of it, to confirm them in 
the belief of what they already infallibly knew. But it was 
necessary that they should be made eye-witnesses of the Lord's 
ascension. Hitherto his departure from them at the close of 
each interview, had been as mysterious as his approach. Luke 
xxiv. 31.* But now the apostles were assembled to witness 
his ascension ; a fact which they were also to preach and testify 
to as eye-witnesses. Acts ii. 33, 34. We may add, by these 
means they were also prepared to apprehend more vividly the 
fulfilment of the promise the Lord made them the night before 
he suffered: "It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I 
go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you, but if I 
depart I will send him unto you." John xvi. 7; xv. 26. They 
could not have understood at the time the manner in which this 
promise would be fulfilled. John xiii. 36; xiv. 5; xvi. 28. The 
event taught them that it was through his death, resurrection, 
and ascension — three mysterious steps, if we may so say — the 
first two of which had been fully proved to them, and they were 
now to be made eye-witnesses of the third, which they would 
naturally — we may say inevitably — connect with the visible 
descent of the Holy Spirit, whose mission depended on the 
ascension of the Lord Jesus to the Father. 

For these reasons, in addition to those already given, we do 
not regard the account of the ascension, in Acts i. 4 — 9, as 
only a more particular statement or narrative of the ascension 
mentioned in Luke xxiv. 51, but as a distinct account of a dif- 



* What Luke says of the Lord's ascension at Bethany, Luke xxiv. 51, he 
wrote by inspiration. He does not mean to assert in that place, that the 
apostles at that time saw him carried up into heaven; for they did not see 
whither he departed, until he left them at his last appearance. 



A PARAPHRASE. 537 

ferent ascension introductory to the relation he was about to 
make of the descent of the Holy Spirit in the next chapter, and 
intended especially to show the manner in which the Lord ful- 
filled the promises just mentioned. John xiii. 33; xiv. 2, 3; 
xv. 26; xvi. 7, 28. His visible ascension, and the visible 
descent of the Holy Spirit, were a demonstration to their 
senses of the truth and fulfilment of his words. They answered 
the questions and doubts of Peter, John xiii. 36: "Whither 
goest thou?" " Why cannot I follow thee now?" in a manner 
they could not fail to comprehend.* 

Thus much premised, we come to the passage, the scope and 
general meaning of which may be learned from the following 
paraphrase, Acts i. 1: In my first book, Theophilus, I have 
related [in part] what Jesus did and taught [during his per- 
sonal ministry] among the Jews, Rom. xv. 8, bringing that 
history down, verse 2, to [the close of the] day, on which he 
[arose from the dead and] ascended [to the Father], having 
[first] given his commands, through the Holy Ghost, to [the 
apostles he had chosen] [to be his witnesses], verse 3. To 
whom he alsot appeared again from heaven at several times 
after he suifered, during [the lengthened period of] forty days; 
exhibiting to them many indubitable proofs [that he was the 
same Jesus whom they had seen crucified]. At these appear- 
ings he spoke to them concerning the kingdom of God [which 
they were anxiously expecting and waiting for], verse 4. At 
length, after the apostles had returned from Galilee, whither 
they went with other disciples, by his express command to see 
him, Matt, xxviii. 10, 16 — 20; having assembled them together 
[upon Mount Olivet, for the last time], he strictly commanded 
them (jxrj %cope££(jdcu), not to leave Jerusalem again [even tem- 

* This view proceeds upon the assumption that each of the treatises of 
Luke is complete in itself — the former ending with the day of the Lord's resur- 
rection — the latter commencing with the day of the Lord's visible ascension, 
*which he introduced with a brief retrospect of the forty days comprised in 
twenty-five words. 

| The force of the particle km in the third verse is to intimate, that besides 
the appearance on the day of his resurrection, he also showed himself from 
time to time to the apostles during forty days afterwards, for their more 
complete and perfect assurance of the fact, and for other gracious purposes. 
Indeed the whole passage shows plainly enough, that the Saviour did not 
constantly dwell bodily on the earth during that period, concealing himself 
for the most part, as some have supposed, in unfrequented places, nor keep 
up his intercourse with them, as he did before, according to the supposition of 
others; but that at each time he appeared to them from heaven, as he after- 
wards did to Paul, under such circumstances, and with such demonstrations, 
as proved beyond a doubt the reality of his resurrection, although he had not 
as yet given them visible evidence of his ascension. What article of faith 
requires us to believe, that the Lord did not ascend to heaven on the day of 
his resurrection, nor until the fortieth day after? See the Apostles' Creed. 

68 



538 



NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 




porarily for any purpose whatever], but to wait [constantly in 
that city] for the fulfilment of the promise of the Father [by 
the visible descent of the Holy Spirit upon them], which [said 
he] ye heard of me [both before I suffered, John xv. 7, and 
afterwards when I first appeared to you, Luke xxiv. 49]. 

[To which he added these words of explanation, in order to 
teach them something of its exalted and glorious nature,] 
verse 5 : John baptized [all the people, Luke iv. 20] with 
water, [without imparting any transforming or saving effect 
upon them, as the event showed,] but ye shall be baptized with 
the Holy Ghost not many days hence. Matt. iii. 2.] 

[This allusion to John the Baptist, whose name, baptism, and 
ministry were associated in their minds, inseparably with the 
expected kingdom, excited their curiosity. They surmised that 
as John's baptism had respect to the kingdom of Messiah, so 
the baptism of the Holy Ghost (which he gave them to under- 
stand was the meaning of the promise of the Father, to which 
he had just referred,) also had respect to the same kingdom, 
and the functions they were immediately, upon receiving this 
baptism of the Spirit, to exercise therein: and being fully 
convinced that he was truly the promised Messiah, and had the 
power to establish his kingdom over Israel whenever he pleased, 
they put to him [directly] this question, verse 6 : Lord, wilt 
thou at this time restore the kingdom unto Israel ? [and is it 
to qualify us for the parts we are to perform therein, that we 
are to receive this new baptism ?] To which question [without 
disclaiming the power the apostles ascribed to him, or the pur- 
pose at some time to restore the kingdom to Israel] he replied 
thus : 

Verse 7. — It is not for you to know times or seasons which 
the Father hath, [not committed to the Son to reveal, Mark 
xiii. 32,] but on the contrary, hath purposely put in his own 
power, (yet whatever may be the Divine purpose in respect 
to this event) verse 8, ye shall receive power — the Holy 
Ghost coming upon you, [whereby] ye shall be qualified 
to become witnesses unto me [not only] in Jerusalem and 
in all Judea, [the limits of your former commission, Matt. 
x. 5, 6, but in] Samaria, and to the uttermost part of the 
earth.* 

[Having thus answered their question by denying the 



* As if lie had said : the Divine purpose in respect to the time for the 
restoration of the kingdom to Israel will not prevent the fulfilment of the 
Father's promise to you. However remote or near that event may be, you 
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, in order to qualify you for the actual 
mission and service in which you are to be employed, and that, too, not many 
days hence. 






RETURN FROM MOUNT OLIVET TO JERUSALEM. 539 

information they asked for, verse 7, and having also removed 
a doubt, verse 8, which might have arisen in their minds, if he 
had merely answered their question, he closed his earthly 
intercourse with them in the body, and, verse 10, while they 
beheld he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their 
sight.] 

[But as he had now appeared to them at several times and 
departed from them, without a promise at any time to appear 
to them again, except to the women on the morning of his 
resurrection, Matt, xxviii. 10 ; and inasmuch as this appear- 
ance was especially designed to make them witnesses of his 
ascension, lest they should indulge the hope that he would 
continue still to appear to them visibly as before, he com- 
manded two angels to appear at their side, as he left them, 
and explain the meaning of what they saw, who addressed them 
thus:] verse 11, Ye men of Galilee, why are ye gazing upward 
to heaven ? [The sight astonishes you. You do not understand 
it. We are sent to tell you why you were made to behold it. 
It is both a proof and an example of what you are slow to 
comprehend.] This same Jesus [whom that cloud has now con- 
cealed from your view, having made you witnesses of his death 
and resurrection, now makes you witnesses of his ascension 
bodily into heaven. Remember how he said unto you, " I came 
forth from the Father and am come into the world. Again I 
leave the world and go to the Father." John xvi. 28. Since 
his resurrection hitherto, he has appeared to you and disap- 
peared at unawares ; you know not how. Think not that he 
will thus appear unto you visibly again. His next appearance 
will be at the times of the restitution of all things, at the end 
of this age, when he] will so come [from heaven] in like man- 
ner as ye have seen him go into heaven, verse 12. Then they 
returned into Jerusalem from the Mount called Olivet, which is 
from Jerusalem a Sabbath-day's journey.*] 

* The leading object of this paraphrase is to ascertain, as far as possible 
from the circumstances and associations of the moment, the current of thought 
in the mind of the writer as well as in the minds of the Saviour and the apos- 
tles, and in this way to account for the transitions which otherwise seem to be 
abrupt. Why, for example, should those who had come together (ol /u& 
ffwoSovTis verse 6,) ask this question concerning the restoration of the kingdom' 
to Israel, unless it wag suggested by the mention of John the Baptist, the 
advent or kingdom-preacher? Why should the Lord, after he had fully 
answered their question, add, verse 8, what the question did not call for, (the 
addition being little more than a repetition of what he had already said in 
verse 4,) unless it was to assure them that the fulfilment of the Father's pro- 
mise was not dependent upon the restoration of the kingdom to Israel, as they 
seemed to suppose ? And what connection had the words of the angels with 
the sight they explained, or with th.' apostles' views or expectations, unless 
it be that suggested in the paraphrase? That there is a consecutive chain of 
meaning from verse 4 to verse 11, we cannot doubt. It may not be that sug- 
gested, but if not, will the reader endeavour to discover it? 



540 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

To this paraphrase we now add a few observations on par- 
ticular passages. 

Acts i. 3. " Speaking [of the] things concerning the king- 
dom of God." 

What the Lord taught his apostles on this subject has not 
been recorded. It is plain, however, from the question they 
put to him, verse 6, that they did not understand him to say 
anything inconsistent with the prophecies respecting the king- 
dom promised to Israel, or its restoration at that time. The 
kingdom of God, of which he spoke, they understood to be the 
kingdom which John the Baptist preached, the coming of which 
he had represented by various parables, Matt, xiii., all of which 
implied some delay in its coming. See notes on Matt. iii. 2, p. 
210. We may infer also from Acts x. ; xv. 7 — 17, that the 
apostles did not learn from him at that time that the Gentiles 
would be sharers therein, Matt. xxii. 1 — 9, although he had 
already assured them that repentance and remission of sins 
should be preached in his name among all nations. Luke xxiv. 
47. Even the inspiration of the Holy Spirit received on the 
day of Pentecost did not extend to this mystery, because a 
special command was necessary, Acts x. 19, 20, to determine 
Peter to go to Cornelius. Indeed the kingdom of God, to a 
great extent, is still a mystery, and will remain so, more or 
less, until it shall be revealed at the appearing of Jesus Christ. 
1 Tim. iv. 1 ; 1 Cor. ii. 9 ; Rev. x. 7 ; 1 John iii. 2; Dan. vii. 
13, 14. 

Acts I. 4. " And being assembled together with them," &c. 
Rather say, "and having convened them." 

This meeting was brought about by a special act of the 
Saviour's providence, as were all the others ; * and this con- 
sideration, if well founded, enables us to decide in favour of 
the common reading. The sense of (auvauXc^ofievoi;) " dwelling 
or lodging with them" is not agreeable to the fact, as we have 
seen, and the sense of " eating together with them" seems to 
imply that the apostles were not yet fully convinced of the 
reality of his resurrection : for it was only as a proof of that 
fact that the Lord partook of food in their presence at all. It 
is plain, however, that after his appearance to Thomas, John 
xx. 26, the apostles, without exception, were perfectly con- 
vinced of this truth. Besides, the sense we have suggested, is 
most agreeable to the Divine nature and dignity of the Saviour, 

* See note on Matt, xxviii. 16. Indeed it is remarkable, that from their 
first call to the apostleship, until his final departure from them, he exercised 
a special care and control over them. Luke xxii. 35 ; Matt. x. 9, 30, com- 
pared with John xvii. 12 ; xviii. 8, 9. 






John's baptism and ministry. 541 

and for that reason most probably, if not certainly, the sense 
of the inspired writer. 

Acts i. 5. "For John truly baptized with water, but ye 
shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." 
Or thus : John baptized [all the people] with water, [to prepare 
them for the kingdom, the advent of which he preached,] but I 
will baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Matt. iii. 11; Mark i. 8. 

It appears to be a part of the Divine plan to introduce every 
new dispensation with a preparatory baptism of those who were 
or are to enjoy it. The dispensation of law was preceded by 
baptism in the cloud and sea. 1 Cor. x. 1, 2. See 1 Peter 
iii. 20, 21; 2 Peter ii. 5; iii. 6, 7. That baptism continued, 
without any other baptism of the whole people, until John was 
sent to preach a new dispensation which implied his authority 
to baptize. John i. 25. Hence our Lord uses the words "bap- 
tism of John" in a sense which includes his function of teaching 
and preaching the kingdom. Matt. xxi. 25. It was this asso- 
ciation of the rite with the preaching of the impending advent 
of Messiah, and of both with the person of John as the ap- 
pointed preacher, taken in connection with the contrast the 
Lord stated between John as a baptizer with water, and himself 
as the baptizer with the Holy Ghost, that suggested to the apos- 
tles the inquiry in the next verse. 

John's ministry preceded but a little, the appearance of Mes- 
siah. In fact, Jesus appeared and began to preach, as soon as 
John's public ministry was ended. Matt. iv. 12. 

It was, therefore, very natural for the apostles, without set- 
ting down anything to the account of Jewish prejudices, *to 
suppose that their ministry, aided by the promised power, would, 
like John's, be brief, and issue immediately in the outward 
establishment of the kingdom they so much desired. The in- 
spiration of the Holy Spirit by degrees corrected and enlarged 
their views, Acts iii. 19 — 21 ; xv. 13 — 17, by unfolding to them, 
as occasion required, more and more of the Divine purposes. 
But with the amount of knowledge they then had, the inquiry 
sprung from the habitual association in their minds of baptism 
with the kingdom: from their hopes of its near approach, 
founded upon the preaching of John, and the promised aid of 
Divine power.* 

* As John's baptism had respect to the kingdom he preached to the Jews, so 
the baptism the apostles were to administer has respect to the kingdom they 
were to preach to all nations. As the purpose of John's ministry and baptism 
terminated with the rejection and death of Christ — that is with the withdrawal 
of the kingdom from the Jews as a nation, Matt. xxi. 43 — so the purpose of 
the ministry and baptism committed to the apostles and their successors will 
terminate with the resurrection of the elect Church and the second coming of 
Christ in that same kingdom which the Jews rejected. Both baptisms had 



542 



NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 









Verses 4, 5. These verses, it may be presumed, comprise 
all the Saviour intended to say in the first instance to the apos- 
tles on this occasion. All he said afterwards, verses 7 and 8, 
was drawn out by their question; and would not have been 
said, it may be presumed, if that question had not been put. 
Hence, it may be inferred that the object of gathering them at 
this time was not to give them further instructions, nor yet to 
confirm them in their belief of the fact of his resurrection, of 
which they were already fully convinced, but to make them wit- 
nesses of his final ascension. Verses 4 and 5, it will be observed, 
are but a repetition of what he had said before, John xx. 19 — 23 ; 
Luke xxiv. 49, except that he more strictly enjoined them not 
to leave Jerusalem, lest being absent at the moment of the 
bestowment of the promised gift, they should fail of the bless- 
ing. It is not improbable that for the same reason they abode 
from that time together, as we are told they did in verses 13 
and 14. 

Acts i. 6. "When they therefore were come together, they 
asked of him," &c. 

The connection of this verse with the preceding is obscured 
by the translation. The meaning is, that the persons who had 
thus been brought together, that is, the apostles and perhaps 
some other disciples, hearing this reference to John and his 
baptism, and the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
therefore asked him, &c. Who composed the company is not 
quite clear. They are not designated apostles. The angels 
called them "men of Galilee," verse 11, and it is apparent 
from the 12th and 13th verses, that the eleven apostles were of 
the number : but it is not improbable that other disciples were 
present, especially those pious women, see verse 14, who were 
last at the cross and first at the sepulchre, on the morning of the 
Lord's resurrection. And if it was a part of the apostles' office to 
bear witness to the Lord's ascension, it is probable, if not quite 
certain, that Joseph called Barsabas, and Matthias were of the 
number, verses 21 — 26. We perceive no reason why others, 

respect to the coming of one and the same kingdom, and both to an elect people, 
but not the same people. The subjects of John's baptism were that generation 
of Jews to whom he was sent, but the subjects of Christian baptism are pro- 
fessed believers of all nations. The water which John applied was but an em- 
blem of the Holy Spirit. The element was continued, but it is still only an em- 
blem of that same Divine energy w.hich the Lord, as the architect of his Church, 
Matt. xvi. 18, keeps in his own power. The apostles and the ministry which, 
instrumentally, they established, apply the element to multitudes, as John did, 
while the Lord baptizes (with the Holy Spirit) those only whom the Father has 
given him. John xvii. 2, 9, 12, 20. John's baptism, like that of Moses, was 
an ineffectual rite. The event proved it. Such, also, is the baptism committed 
to the apostles and the Church when unattended with the Holy Spirit's renew- 
ing power. Yet it is a divinely appointed ordinance of inestimable value. 



MISCONCEPTION OF THE APOSTLES. 543 

as well as the apostles, should not be permitted to witness this 
wonderful event. The angels might especially address the 
apostles as they did, although others, Galilean men and women, 
were present. 

Acts i. 6. "Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the king- 
dom to Israel?" 

It is not probable that the apostles had an enlarged con- 
ception of the kingdom about which they inquired. See notes 
on Luke xxiv. 25, 26. Yet they were not mistaken in assuming 
that a kingdom had been promised to their people. Isa. i. 26 ; 
Zech. ix. 9; Micah iv. ; Amos ix. 11; Hos. iii. 4, 5. The 
idea of theocracy was familiar to them, but it was a theocracy 
distinct from and paramount to the government of their kings 
and earthly rulers. The blending or consolidation of the 
theocracy with the earthly throne and kingdom of David, 
at the accession of Messiah, was a mystery they did not under- 
stand. This is indeed still the great undeveloped mystery of 
the kingdom. The astonishing events they had witnessed had 
fully convinced them of a part of this great mystery, the union, 
namely, of the Divine with the human nature, in the person of 
their Master ; but this did not explain to them the profound and 
far-reaching mystery of the throne and the kingdom of David, 
nor had they any proper conception of the means by which, or 
of the dignity and glory to which, it was his purpose to exalt 
them. It is probable, therefore, that their conceptions of it 
were influenced by, if not formed upon the most prosperous 
period in their national history. But their misconception of it, 
whatever it may have been, and their low views, are to be 
ascribed to ignorance, not to national prejudice. The glories 
of the kingdom as well as the times of it, are still unrevealed 
secrets, deeply hidden in the mind of God, which his providence 
only will disclose. 1 Tim. vi. 14 — 18. See the Jeivish 
Chronicle for April, 1849, vol. iii. pp. 289, 291. 

Acts i. 7. "It is not for you to know the times or the 
seasons which the Father has put in his own power." 

This clause is better rendered without the article. The 
meaning is, It is not for you to know any of the times or 
seasons connected in the Divine mind with the purposes of 
redemption; for these the Father hath hidden under his 
Almighty power. 

The restoration of the kingdom to Israel is one of those 
purposes. With it are connected others of inconceivable mag- 
nitude and glory — the completion of the elect church, or the 
church of the first born, the body of Christ — their resurrection 
to glory — the second coming of Christ — the destruction of the 
man of sin — the binding of Satan — the removal of the curse, 





544 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

and the restitution of all things contained in God's covenant 
■with Abraham. 

Bengel, in loco, remarks, that the emphasis is on you, as if 
others might know what they might not.* 

This may be true in a qualified sense: for the Lord had 
already given them, and through them the church, providential 
signs of his coming, to be watched for. Luke xxi. 25 — 36; 
Mark xiii. 24—37; Matt. xxiv. 29—37. But this question 
was definite. It called for precise information: Lord, wilt 
thou, at this time,'" &c. It is worthy of remark, that our Lord 
always refused to answer such inquiries. See Matt. xxiv. 
3, 42; xxv. 13; Mark xiii. 4. 32, 33; Luke xii. 36—46; 
xxi. 7, 34. It is plain from the Epistles, that the inspiration 
of the apostles afterwards, did not extend to this subject. 
1 Thess. v. 2; 2 Thess. ii. 3—8; 2 Pet. iii. 10; Rev. iii. 3; 
xvi. 15. 

Acts I. 9. "And .... while they beheld he was taken 
up, and a cloud received him out of their sight." 

The sacred writer describes according to the appearance. 
The angels he calls men, because they appeared in the form of 
men; and that which concealed the ascending Saviour from 
view, he calls a cloud, for such it appeared to be. We should 
err, however, if we conceived of it as a natural cloud of vapour, 
through which the Lord passed. At his transfiguration a cloud 
appeared, out of which a heavenly voice issued. Luke ix. 34, 35; 
Mark ix. 7 ; Matt. xvii. 5 ; 2 Pet. i. 17. See also, Exod. xiv. 19 ; 
xvi. 10; xxiv. 15, 16; xxxiv. 5; xl. 38; 1 Kings viii. 10; Isa. 
iv. 5, which we are accustomed to regard as supernatural, and 
so we regard this. The ascension was an act of Divine power, 
and why may not all its attendant circumstances be ascribed to 
the same cause? 

Acts I. 12. "Then returned they [from the place where 
they witnessed the ascension] unto Jerusalem [namely] from 
the Mount called Olivet, which is from Jerusalem a Sabbath- 
day's journey." 

Upon the hypothesis that our Lord first ascended to heaven 
on the fortieth day after his resurrection, it is difficult to 
reconcile this verse with Luke xxiv. 50, 51. See notes on those 
verses. Some have imagined there were two places called 
Bethany ; but if this were so, some of the Evangelists unques- 
tionably would have mentioned the fact. See Matt. xxi. 17; 
xxvi. 6; Mark xi. 1, 11, 12; xiv. 3; Luke xix. 29; xxiv. 50; 

* Non dicit non est vestrum sed non vestrum est ... . Non dicit non est juris 
et officii vestri qucerere, sed ait non vestrum est nosse. Revelatio oeconomise 
divinse babet suos gradus. 



THE PLACE OF THE LOKD'S ASCENSION. 545 

John xi. 1; xii. 1. Reland rejects the supposition. All the 
itineraries, according to that author, show but one Bethany, 
and that at the foot of the Mount of Olives, on the east. 
Others suppose that tradition only fixes the summit of the 
Mount as the place of ascension ; but such a tradition naturally, 
not to say inevitably, would arise from this verse, and should 
therefore be regarded as the early and contemporaneous expo- 
sition of the text, and for that reason more likely to be accord- 
ing to the truth than any different one which modern criticism 
can suggest.* The difficulty disappears, if we admit several 
ascensions — a supposition quite consonant with the Divine 
power and majesty of the Saviour. See notes on John xx. 17. 
And why should the sacred writer mention Mount Olivet at 
all, and especially the distance of a particular summit or part 
of it from the city, if he had it in his mind to signify that they 
returned from Bethany? This would be to go out of his way 
in order to make a geographical note not called for by his 
subject; and at the same time, an omission of the chief thing 
he intended to say. The language he employed in his Gospel, 
xxiv. 50, 52, would have expressed his meaning clearly and 
fully. It is true, if they returned from Bethany by the nearest 
way, they returned along that part of the Mount which was 
opposite to the city, and when they reached the summit they 
were a Sabbath-day's journey from the city. But this he does 
not say. He says simply they returned from the Mount of 
Olives, without mention of any other place, and from the 
necessity of the case, we may say, they returned from the place 
of ascension. Hence the inference seems necessary, that the 
place from which he finally ascended was that part of the 
Mount of Olives which was a Sabbath-day's journey, about 
2,000 cubits, or one thousand yards from the city. No doubt 
would have arisen on this question were it not for Luke xxiv. 
50, 51, which applies, as we think it has been shown, to a 
different ascension. It may be added, that Zechariah, in pro- 
phesying of the Lord's return, Acts i. 11, designates the Mount 
of Olives as the place where his feet shall stand, xiv. 4, and 
Ezekiel, xi. 23, denotes that mountain as the place upon which 
the glory of the Lord rested.")* 

* Bernard Lamy resolves the difficulty in this way, which he considers easy 
and satisfactory: "Non in ipsa Bethania sed in via, qua Dominus se recipere 
solebat in Bethaniam, ascendit in coelum; scilicet, eduxerat discipulos foras 
extra Hierosolyma, quasi more suo vellet ire in Bethaniam. In itinere autem 
antequam hue perveniret assumptus est." But the words of Luke, xxiv. 50, 
are: He led them out (s£? ik BuBaviav) as far as to Bethany, which do not admit 
such an interpretation. 

f Josephus mentions the Mount of Olives in Antiquities, books vii. 8; ix. 11; 
xx. 6; Jewish War vi. 3. It is referred to under different designations in 

69 



546 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Acts I. 13, 14. "And when they were come in" — after they 
had come into the city — "they went up into [the] upper room — 
where abode Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, 
and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Al- 
pheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James. 
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, 
with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his 
brethren." 

From the place of the ascension, these persons returned im- 
mediately to the upper apartment the apostles had, probably, 
previously occupied. The definiteness of the language justifies 
the supposition that some particular places were in the mind of 
the writer. Setting out from Mount Olivet, they returned, by 
a short walk, immediately to the city, and entering it, they pro- 
ceeded together to the upper apartment, in the occupation and 
under the control of the apostles. Upon entering it, they en- 
gaged in prayer, and continued to do so daily, in expectation of 
the fulfilment of the Father's promise. Other disciples also 
took part in these daily exercises ; among whom were certain 
women, of whom only one is mentioned by name — Mary the 
mother of Jesus, and his nearest kinsmen. 

Nothing compels us to believe that all these disciples dwelt 
together under the same roof, but only the apostles, who were 
probably influenced to do so by the supposed connection between 
the Saviour's command to keep within the walls of the city, and 
his promise to baptize them with the Holy Spirit. Nor need 
we suppose they did not leave the apartment, or visit the 
temple daily: for this would contradict Luke xxiv. 52. The 
command was merely not to depart from the city, ano ^IepoaoX- 
u/jtcou prj -^copc^eadat. It was enough that they should be found 
together in one place, and so they were daily at the appointed 
hours for prayer. May we not believe that at such a meeting 
the Holy Spirit descended upon them? Acts ii. 1; see iv. 31. 
But to whom did they address their prayers? The events of 
which they had been eye-witnesses, left no doubt in their minds 
of the Divine nature of their Master. They knew him to be 
omniscient, as well as all-powerful, and to him they prayed. 
This is apparent from verse 24, which contains the only notice 

1 Kings xi. 7; Mark xiii. 3. The Jews sometimes called it the Mount of Unc- 
tion, and they have a tradition that the Shekina, see Buxtorf s Chald. Rabb. 
and Talmud. Lex. ad voc, dwelt three years and a half on that mountain to 
see whether the people would return to God— calling out to them, "Return to 
me, my sons, and I will return to you" — but as they remained impenitent the 
Shekina returned to his own place. The mountain has three summits : the 
northern is the highest, and is distant two stadia or furlongs from that opposite 
to the city. The southern summit is called the Mount of Offence. The inter- 
mediate is that of the Ascension. See Reland's Palestine. 



REASONS FOE THE EVENTS OF THE DAY OF PENTECOST. 547 

we have of the prayers they offered during this short interval. 
Their faith in this essential fact, then, preceded their inspiration 
by the Holy Spirit, and this removes one of the chief argu- 
ments of those who would fritter down the confession of Thomas 
into a mere exclamation. John xx. 28. 

It is a notable circumstance that Mary the mother of our 
Lord is not mentioned in the New Testament, after this place, 
and that the other female disciples, whose names so frequently 
occur in the Gospels, are here alluded to only in general terms, 
and not afterwards — a confirmatory proof of what is sufficiently 
apparent from other places, 1 Tim. ii. 12; 1 Cor. xi., that the 
active public ministry of the gospel was not committed unto 
them. This may well be allowed, without detracting in the 
least from their importance and eminent usefulness in the 
Church. 

We have now reviewed all the passages respecting our Lord's 
appearances to his apostles and disciples after his resurrection. 
To them these appearances established the fact, beyond the 
possibility of doubt, and thus qualified them to be witnesses of 
it to the world. But would the world receive the fact on their 
assurance, whatever proofs they might give of their sincerity? 
Would it be reasonable to expect it? More than this: would 
it be consistent with the equity of the Divine government to 
demand belief of facts so wonderful, upon mere human testi- 
mony? Even the Lord himself appealed to his works in con- 
firmation of his words. John v. 36 ; x. 25 ; xv. 24. Admitting 
the sincerity of the apostles, they were ignorant and unlearned 
men, and it would be much safer to believe they were deceived, 
than to receive upon their assurance as true, events so incredi- 
ble. So the world would reason. Add to this : the matters to 
which the apostles were to testify concerned the religious faith 
of the people, of which they were tenacious beyond example. 
How could they who had rejected and put to death the Master, 
notwithstanding his miracles, be expected to receive, with the 
obedience of faith, the unconfirmed testimony of his unlettered 
servants? His death was public, and extremely ignominious. 
None but his disciples ever saw him after his resurrection. The 
popular belief was, he had not risen at all. The rulers and 
priests asserted that his disciples had stolen and concealed his 
dead body, to give support to imposture. See notes on Matt, 
xxviii. 13. Under such circumstances, their verbal testimony 
would be regarded as the testimony of disappointed men, and 
unworthy of belief even by the vulgar. Why, it would be in- 
quired, if he really rose from the dead, did he not publicly ap- 
pear, as he did before, in the temple and before the assemblies 
of the people, that all might see him and judge for themselves 



548 NOTES ON SCRIPTUKE. 

of the reality of the fact? These and such questions suggest, 
as we suppose, some of the reasons of the events of the day of 
Pentecost, and of the extraordinary powers which were then 
conferred upon the apostles. Formally stated: The leading 
design of the gifts of the Holy Spirit at that time bestowed 
upon the apostles, appears to have been, (1.) To establish and 
confirm the truth of their testimony, as witnesses of the resur- 
rection and ascension of Jesus. (2.) To prove to the apostles 
themselves, as well as to others,, Jhat the Spirit of Truth, John 
xvi. 13, the Comforter, xvi. 7, had really come, in fulfilment of 
the Saviour's promise, and dwelt in them and acted by them. 

No doubt these gifts were subservient to other uses, some of 
which have been already briefly alluded to. See note on Mark 
xvi. 17, 18. They excited and fixed the attention of all of 
every rank, nation, and religion. They enabled the apostles 
to control and authoritatively to govern their numerous con- 
verts, and organize them into churches, and appoint over them 
rulers and teachers. They also attested the truth and author- 
ity of their writings. But these are topics which do not come 
within the scope of these notes. Incidentally some of them 
may be noticed. The first two, however, belong to the order 
of proofs under consideration, and in discussing them it will be 
necessary to examine with particular attention the miracles the 
apostles wrought, and the arguments they founded thereon to 
prove the Messiahship of the Lord Jesus, and consequently his 
resurrection from the dead, his ascension to heaven, and his 
future coming in his kingdom. 



CHAPTER XV, 

Christ's glorification. 

The Day of Pentecost. — Peter's discourse. — Peter's argument. — The miracles 
that were wrought. — The elect church. — The miracle of healing. — The times 
of refreshing. — The different dispensations. — The restitution of all things. 

Acts ii. — The glorification of the crucified body of the Lord 
Jesus was an event fraught with the profoundest instruction to 
angels, as well as to men. Eph. i. 20, 21; iii. 10; Col. i. 18; 
Heb. i. 6; 1 Pet. i. 12. It was his installation at the right 
hand of power. Acts ii. 33. The sending down of the Holy 
Spirit was dependent on this event, John vii. 39, which, as we 
conceive, occurred simultaneously with his glorification. Then 
he was completely and for ever enlarged from the restraints he 
subjected himself to, by his incarnation, and then it was he 



CHRIST'S GLORIFICATION. 549 

resumed the glory he had with the Father before the world was. 
Col. ii. 6 — 11 ; John xvii. 5; Heb. v. 5. His body was then bap- 
tized with the baptism he had desired, Luke xii. 49, 50, and 
the members of his mystical body on earth — adopting the inspired 
imagery of the apostle, 1 Cor. vi. 15; Rom. xii. 5; 1 Cor. xii. 
27; Eph. i. 22, 23; iv. 12, 13; Col. i. 24; John xvii. 21—23 
— at the same moment shared, though in much smaller 
measure, in the Divine unction. Ps. cxxxiii. 2. 

It was to his glorification then, as we suppose, the Lord 
referred, by the words in Luke xii. 50. As this interpretation 
of the passage is at variance with the common application of it, 
the reader may desire to know the reasons on which it is 
founded. It is also important to explain them, in order to cast a 
clearer light upon what may be called the great epoch in the 
world of redemption. The words are, "I have a baptism to be 
baptized with, and (ttcoz ouve^ofiaz) how am I straitened till it 
be {zeXeady) accomplished." It is commonly supposed that our 
Lord referred by this expression exclusively to his sufferings 
on the cross, and there can be no doubt that they were at that 
moment vividly presented to his mind. They lay in the 
appointed way to the enlargement he desired, consequent upon 
the exaltation of his human person to glory and power, and 
the resumption of the glory he had laid aside. The word 
(veXza&r-j) translated "accomplished," is of cognate origin with 
the word rsXetoa) which occurs several times in the Epistle to 
the Hebrews, and is commonly rendered "made perfect." ii. 10; 
v. 9; vii. 19—28; ix. 9; x. 1, 14; xi. 40; xii. 23. This 
word (refotoa),) when applied to the Lord Jesus uniformly de- 
notes his exaltation to glory. See Schleusners Lex. Nov. Test. 
ad voc. zeXetoco, and Stuart on Heb. ii. 10, and the other places 
cited. So here*: this word (rehadr/) being joined with 
(fia7iTc<Tp.a) baptism, also denotes the glorification of his human 
person. Until it, that is his glorification, should be accom- 
plished he could not, consistently with the Divine purpose, put 

* The joining of a word of the same origin, and so similar in signification, 
see Scapula ad voc. t«xo?, with the word baptism (fix.7r<ricrfjix.) is in itself an argu- 
ment of some weight. If we add, that in Hebrews ii. 10; v. 8, 9, the word 
(TiMioco) understood in the sense of glorification, is used in connection with the 
appointed means through which [iiu. 7raL&ny.xTCDv) his state of glorification was 
attained, the argument is considerably enforced: and finally, if we duly con- 
sider that there was a logical necessity for the interchange of the verbs arising 
from the nature of the different subjects of which they are predicated, and 
also the evident parallelism which exists between this passage and those last 
cited from the Epistle to the Hebrews, we shall find sufficient reasons to admit 
the interpretation suggested. We may add that the baptism of the believer, 
by the Holy Spirit, is the beginning of a work or process which ends in his 
glorification, and in this sense his baptism is not accomplished (perfected) until 
his glorification. See Rom. viii. 29, 30, 






550 



NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 




forth his almighty energies. See Matt. xxvi. 53, 54; Deut. 
xviii. 18; John v. 19—30; viii. 28; ix. 4; xii. 49; xiv. 10. 
He could not send down the Holy Spirit he had promised. 
John vii. 39 ; xvi. 7. Till then, he would retain the form of a 
servant, Philip, ii. 7, and consequently be straitened or con- 
fined to such acts of power and grace as had been appointed to 
him to perform in that subject condition.* 

This interpretation discloses the latent thought w T hich con- 
nects this verse, Luke xii. 50, with the preceding (49th) verse, 
and the three following: " I am come to send fire on the earth, 
and what will I — (desire I more) — if it be already kindled?" 
The language is highly figurative. It expresses intense desire, 
and what so desirable to him in his human character, as his 
glorification ? Heb. xii. 2. Under the emblem of fire he 
alluded to the descent of the Holy Spirit at the Pentecost, 
which was then first kindled, and from that day forward was 
sent broad-cast into the earth. The strife between the powers 
of the Saviour, which he then began to put forth through the 
Holy Spirit, and the powers of darkness, was then com- 
menced, Acts ii. 13, which was to result in the separation of 
the children of the kingdom from fleshly alliances, Matt. x. 
34 — 39 ; Luke xii. 51 — 53, and prepare them as an elect 
people to receive God's king of Zion at his second coming.f 

* The word (ovnxpfAsu) straitened, is very energetic. This we perceive 
when we reflect who spoke it. It signifies to be shut up or kept in constraint, 
as in a narrow passage — to be bound,, held fast, shackled. See notes on Luke 
xxiv. 38 — 40. The LXX. employ it in some places, to translate *$$ (atsar, 

see Trommius. ) It is worthy of remark also, that the Jews apply the word 
(tTllES) atsereth, in the sense of restraining or shutting up, to the seven 
weeks between the Passover and the Pentecost; probably because the joy 
of the harvest was at that time restrained. See Brown's Antiquities of the Jews, 
vol. i. p. 480. Also Numb. xvi. 48; Job xxix. 9; 1 Chron. xxi. 22; Heb. text 
and Gussetius Com. Ling. Heb. and Schindler Lex. Pentaglot. ad voc. for 
the use of this word. It is not improbable our Lord had respect to this 
customary use of the word in the Jewish Calendar, and the enlargement he 
should receive at the close of it, by the baptism of his body by the Holy 
Spirit. 

f It may be supposed that Matt. xx. 22, 23, and Mark x. 39, are incon- 
sistent with this interpretation, but on the contrary, if rightly explained, they 
confirm it. In these verses, the idea of deep affliction is expressed by the 
words, " drink of my cup;" an expression which allows, if it does not require, 
us to understand the phrase, "be baptized with the baptism with which I am 
baptized," of glorification. The sense, as we conceive, is expressed by the 
following paraphrase: "Ye shall indeed drink of my cup" of sorrows, Matt, 
xxvi. 39 ; "and be baptized with my baptism," by which at first your souls 
shall be renewed and sanctified, and your bodies shall ultimately be glori- 
fied, and made like my own glorious body. Philip, iii. 21 ; 1 John iii. 2 ; 
Rom. viii. 29. A glory and a blessedness so great should satisfy you. " But 
to sit on my right hand and my left," enjoying the first places in my king- 



CHRIST'S GLORIFICATION. 551 

The common belief is that the Lord was glorified immediately 
on his ascension, and it is founded perhaps upon the supposed 
incongruity, or unfitness, of his appearing in heaven in his 
unglorified human form. Hence, perhaps, one reason for post- 
poning his first ascension till the fortieth day after his resur- 
rection. We have, however, endeavoured to show that the Lord 
ascended on the morning of his resurrection, and afterwards 
repeatedly during this period. See notes on John xx. 17; 
Luke xxiv. 50, 51; and Horsley, Sermons on the Resurrection. 
And why should it be thought incredible that the man Christ 
Jesus should thus appear in the presence of the Father, as the 
first Adam might have done, had he continued sinless ? Can 
we be sure that there was no purpose in the plan of redemption 
which he was required to accomplish within the veil, that is, in 
the upper sanctuary, before his glorification? Why was not 
the Holy Spirit given immediately upon his last (visible) ascen- 
sion? Was this gift bestowed in answer to his intercession 
after his ascension, first upon himself, as the head and first- 
born of the new creation, without measure — in all the fulness 
of the Divine power ; and at the same time in such measure as 
needful upon his members ? See Heb. vii. 25. We can neither 
affirm nor deny. These things are not revealed.* 

In the absence, then, of any more explicit declaration of 
Scripture, the foregoing observations render it at least probable 
that the glorification of the Lord Jesus was the great event of 

dom, "is not mine to give except to those for whom it has been prepared 
of my Father." 

The common interpretation of this passage makes the Saviour's answer 
tautological. For the idea of suffering is twice expressed, thereby divesting 
it of any promise of good whatever. The interpretation suggested finds in 
it an exceedingly great and glorious promise, in which all his faithful apos- 
tles had an equal share. Besides, neither James nor John sufFered death by 
crucifixion. James was put to death by the sword. Acts xii. 2. John died, it 
is supposed, a natural death, at a very advanced age, after having sufFered 
severe persecutions. We may regard these events as the fulfilment of the 
prediction that they should "drink of his cup." The Saviour certainly did 
not intend to say that they should suffer death on the cross. Again, how 
consistent the interpretation above suggested is with the gracious char- 
acter of the Saviour. He assured those ignorant and ambitious, though loving 
and beloved disciples, of glory and happiness inconceivably great, which 
they should enjoy in common with their fellow-disciples, yet not the pre- 
eminence in his kingdom — the thing which they asked. See Matt, xviii. 
2, 3; Luke xxii. 24—30; John xiii. 13—17. The next verse, Matt. xx. 24; 
Mark x. 41, shows how little the other ten entered into the spirit of the 
Lord's answer. 

* It is worthy of observation that, our Lord was transfigured on the holy 
mount while he was in the act of prayer, Luke ix. 29; an^in his final inter- 
cession he prayed to the Father for glorification. John xvii. 5. See Luke 
iii. 21. The glorification of his manhood, and of his elect people, consti- 
tuting together one body, were alike the purchase of his death and inter- 
cession. 



552 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

the day of Pentecost, and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on 
the apostles was an outward manifestation of greater things 
then done in heaven. By considering these events as simulta- 
neous, we enter more fully into the doctrine of the oneness of 
Christ, (the head) with his members (his body) and are enabled 
to conceive more adequately of the manner and glory of its 
origin. These observations premised, we proceed to 

Acts ii. 1. "And when the day of Pentecost was fully 
come, they were all with one accord in one place." 

The feast of Pentecost (r^c nevrewarr^) occurred on the 
fiftieth day after the Passover. The Jews observed it in com- 
memoration of the giving of the law, on the fiftieth day after 
the exodus of Israel from Egypt, when that people put them- 
selves under the leadership of Moses, and the patriarchal 
economy, as to them, ceased. They call it also the feast of 
weeks, because it fell on the last day of the seventh week after 
the day of the Passover. They call it also the feast of first 
fruits, because on that day they offered to God the first fruits 
of the wheat harvest. As this feast was instituted immediately 
after the giving of the law, it has always been regarded as a 
public attestation of that great event. Exod. xxxiv. 22 ; Levit. 
xxiii. 15, 16. We observe, also, that as the patriarchal dispen- 
sation ceased fifty days before Israel came into new covenant 
relations with Jehovah at the foot of Mount Sinai, so the 
Levitical economy ceased fifty days before the economy of the 
Spirit was inaugurated. The meaning of these short pauses in 
the march of the Divine administrations, the Scriptures do not 
explain. We doubt not that both are typical in their nature, 
the former of the latter, and the latter of something yet 
future ; although, by many interpreters, the latter is regarded 
merely as the period allotted for proving to the apostles and 
disciples the reality of the Lord's resurrection. Besides, this 
view of it does not extend to the whole of this period, but 
leaves a portion of it — the interval between the Lord's visible 
ascension and the day of Pentecost — unexplained. 

How many of the disciples were gathered together, and at 
what place within the city, we are not informed. Beza inclines 
to follow the reading of two ancient MSS., which limits the 
number to the apostles, who alone, at the first outpouring, 
received the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, and to whom it had 
been especially promised. John xvi. 7 — 13. The place, it is 
probable, was (not the temple, else probably it would have 
been mentioned but) some private dwelling, where they had 
been accustomed to assemble. 

Acts ii. 2, 3, 4. " And suddenly there came a sound from 
heaven as ot a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house 



THE DAY OF PENTECOST. 553 

where they were sitting : and there appeared unto them cloven 
tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them : And 
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak 
with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." 

This was the outward visible fulfilment of the Saviour's pro- 
mise at the last interview with the Twelve before he suffered. 
See notes on Mark xvi. 17, 18. As before suggested, it was 
the effect of an act performed in the Upper Sanctuary, within 
the veil, far more glorious in heaven than on earth — a greater 
wonder to the heavenly hosts than to the inhabitants of Jeru- 
salem. These demonstrations of the Divine power and presence 
could not fail to remove every doubt, if any remained, upon the 
minds of those disciples, who either received or witnessed the 
bestowment of this gift. They were designed, also, as a sign to 
others, and had the effect of arresting and fixing their attention, 
as we learn from the following verses. See 1 Cor. xiv. 22. 
The power to speak in other tongues, never learned or heard, 
suddenly imparted to illiterate men, was a great miracle, alto- 
gether new in its kind, and utterly inexplicable, except by the 
inspiration of the Holy Ghost, verse 4. 

Upon the apostles themselves, the first effect of the Spirit 
was no doubt regenerative. Luke xxii. 32; Matt, xviii. 3. 
Hitherto the Saviour had kept them by his special providence 
and care. John xvii. 12 ; xviii. 8, 9 ; Luke xxii. 35. Now he 
handed them over, so to speak, to the power and guidance of 
the Holy Spirit, John xvi. 13, who commenced his work by 
renewing their souls, and transforming them into eminently 
holy, although not perfect men. He inspired them with new 
courage, enlightened their minds and enlarged their views, by 
removing the veil which hitherto had bounded their mental 
vision. A suffering Messiah was no longer a stumbling-block, 
but the only Messiah who could fulfil the predictions of the 
prophets. These effects we shall see exemplified as we proceed. 
But before we leave this passage, we should add that this first 
outpouring of the Holy Spirit was the fulfilment, in part, of 
the promise recorded in Mark xvi. 17, 18. If we compare this 
passage with John xiv. 16, and 1 Cor. xii. 4 — 11, we learn 
that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in believers would be 
made manifest in two ways, (1) by his converting power, and 
(2) by miraculous gifts, or powers ; such as those of speaking 
new tongues, healing the sick, casting out demons, and other 
diversities of gifts, or of operations of the same gift. All these 
operations, the regenerative as much as the rest,- are in truth 
equally miraculous, being the effect of Divine power exerted 
according to the Divine will, in a manner removed from human 
power and scrutiny. Yet, there is this difference between 
70 



554 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

them : in his converting power, the Holy Spirit was promised 
to abide in the Church for ever ; that is, until the last born of 
God's elect shall be born again, and the Lord himself shall 
return to gather the whole body unto himself. But the out- 
wardly manifested miraculous endowments of the Spirit were 
designed especially to qualify the apostles and their fellow- 
labourers for laying the foundations of the Church, and rapidly 
extending it throughout the world. These, as before remarked, 
see notes on Mark xvi. 17, 18, were not designed, as some have 
supposed, to be perpetual in the Church; and the withdrawal 
or cessation of those powers is not* an evidence of the want of 
faith in those who are truly Christ's, but a part of the plan of 
the dispensation under which we live. See notes on John xx. 29. 

The effect which the visible descent of the Spirit produced on 
the devout Jews at Jerusalem, is narrated in verses 7 — 12. The 
varieties of people, of their origin, and of the languages they 
spoke, give us a better idea of the confluence of strangers at 
that city, especially at the season of festivals, than we can 
obtain from any other passage. These persons, being Jews by 
descent or proselytes, but foreigners by birth, could appreciate 
the greatness of the sign, while others, probably natives of 
Judea, not understanding the languages spoken, regarded them 
as jargon, and the effect of drunkenness, verse 13. 

Acts ii. 14 — 36. But Peter standing up with the eleven, 
repelled the calumny. He declared that this wonderful display 
was the outpouring of the Spirit predicted by the prophet Joel, 
chap. ii. 28 — 32, whom he quoted at length, and then proceeded 
to apply it as a proof of the Divine mission of Jesus of Nazareth, 
and of his resurrection from the dead, and, verse 33, exaltation 
to glory. He asserted that it was his act : " He hath shed forth 
this which ye now see and hear." In the course of his address 
he quotes Ps. xvi. 8, in proof of the resurrection of Christ, to 
which he adds the personal testimony of the apostles, who had 
received this wonderful gift of speaking foreign tongues. Such 
is the summary of the apostle's argument. We add a few 
observations upon some of the particulars. 

(1.) He uses the event he was speaking of, as a proof of the 
resurrection. " This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all 
are witnesses," verse 32, and he confirms the testimony by this 
obvious consideration ; that the wonderful gift they had thus 
suddenly received, could be bestowed only by God, leaving it to 
be inferred by his hearers, that God would not bestow it to con- 
firm their testimony if it were false. The argument is not 
only logical but conclusive. It is impossible that God should 
sanction or attest a falsehood by a miraculous display of his 
power, such as they witnessed. It will be instructive to notice 



PETER'S DISCOURSE. 555 

particularly the manner in which he confirms the personal testi- 
mony of the apostles by the Scriptures, verses 25 — 31. " For 
David speaking concerning him (Jesus of Nazareth) said, I 
foresaw the Lord always before my face ; for he is on my right 
hand that I should not be moved. Therefore did my heart 
rejoice and my tongue was glad. Moreover also, my flesh shall 
rest in hope, because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell" — leave 
me in the grave (or 6\dys, the invisible world) — " neither wilt 
thou suffer thine Holy One to -see corruption. Thou hast made 
known to me the ways of life (John xiv. 6) : thou shalt make 
me full of joy with thy countenance." This quotation from 
Ps. xvi. 8 — 11, the apostle avers was spoken of the resurrec- 
tion of Christ- — that he, viz. his human person, should not be 
left in (hades) the grave — that is, his body should not be left in 
the grave, nor his soul and spirit in the world of spirits — and 
that his body should not be permitted to see corruption. This 
sense, however, does not clearly appear from the passage itself, 
nor have we reason to suppose it was so understood by the 
learned of the nation. To deduce it from the passage, the 
apostle collates with it Ps. cxxxii. 11, and Ps. ex. 1, and pro- 
ceeds to argue thus from the facts of the case. 'David has 
long been dead and buried. His sepulchre remains among 
us until this day. His body has seen corruption. Therefore, 
although these words of David were apparently spoken of 
himself, that is not their meaning: for in that sense they are 
not true. Yet David was a prophet, and he spoke these words 
by inspiration of the Holy Ghcst, and we must therefore 
understand them as spoken of another.' 

But of whom ? To settle this question the apostle turns his 
hearers to Ps. cxxxii. 11, and then proceeds: David remembered 
God's promise to him — confirmed by oath — "that of the fruit 
of his loins according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to 
sit upon his throne." This promise, then, was to be fulfilled in 
Christ ; and, the Holy Ghost foreseeing that Christ would be 
rejected and put to death by his people, it included not merely 
the birth of Christ from one of David's descent, but his resur- 
rection from the dead. And to him these words do apply ; for 
he was not left in the grave, nor did his body see corruption, 
but God raised him up from the dead on the third day after he 
had suffered by your hands, and we, his apostles, are eye-wit- 
nesses of that fact which we now declare to you. And not only 
hath God raised him from the dead, but he has exalted him 
according to another Psalm (ex. 1,) in which David says, "The 
Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, until I 
make thy foes thy footstool." This Psalm also plainly is not 
applicable to David, Matt. xxii. 42 — 45: for David has not 



556 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

ascended into heaven, but Jesus of Nazareth has ascended, of 
which also we were eye-witnesses; and having ascended he 
received of God the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, which 
he promised before his ascension to send upon us, which promise 
he has this day fulfilled, as you now see and hear, verse 36. 
Therefore, let all the house of Israel know for a certainty, that 
God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye lately rejected and 
crucified as a malefactor, both Lord and Christ. 

The grounds of the argument then are these. The visible 
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and the miraculous powers he 
had conferred, were predicted by the prophet Joel, and they 
were a proof of the ascension of Jesus of Nazareth, whom they 
had wickedly put to death. This prophet, therefore, had respect 
in this prophecy to the ascension of Christ. His ascension 
implied his resurrection from the dead, and this fact had been 
foretold by David ; and these facts they, the apostles, who had 
received these wonderful powers, were eye-witnesses of: so that 
both these prophecies were confirmed — the first by what they 
saw and heard, and the second by the positive testimony of the 
apostles, whose testimony was also confirmed by the miraculous 
power of being able to speak perfectly many different languages 
they had never learned, as though they were their vernacular 
tongue. The greatness of this miracle will be best appreciated 
by those who have attempted to acquire the ability to speak a 
single foreign language with propriety and fluency — a task which 
is seldom accomplished after attaining the age of maturity, even 
by the most gifted. 

The argument, as a whole, is perfectly conclusive; yet it 
must be confessed, that without the explanation of the apostles, 
and their testimony as witnesses to the facts he alleged, we 
should not be able to find in these passages a prediction of the 
resurrection and exaltation of Christ. The same may be said 
of Ps. ii. 7, cited by the apostle Paul for the same purpose, Acts 
xiii. 33; see Heb. i. 5: "Thou, art my son, this day have I 
begotten thee." And these, it may be presumed, are among 
the clearest prophecies relating to the subject. The obscurity 
was designed, lest too luminous a disclosure of the foreseen 
rejection of Christ by the nation, and of God's intended pro- 
ceedings thereon, should interfere with the freedom of the Jews 
to receive their Messiah and enjoy the blessings of the kingdom 
he preached. Suppose for a moment that the rejection, cruci- 
fixion, resurrection, ascension, and the second coming of Christ, 
or either of them, had been clearly foretold in the Old Testa- 
ment — the reader will perceive the influence it would have had 
on that people during our Lord's personal ministry. Had it 
been a part of the national faith, that, by the determinate 



CHANGE WROUGHT IN THE MIND OF PETER. 557 

counsel and foreknowledge of God, they were to reject their 
Messiah, and wickedly put him to death, the people might have 
said, " It is in vain to preach the kingdom to us, or expect us 
to receive either the kingdom or the king." Or if not this, the 
unbelief of the nation would in some way have perverted the 
knowledge of these events into a stone of stumbling and an 
additional occasion of ruin. But the purpose of God required 
that the nation should be free in their action — free to receive, 
and free to reject: because they were to be held responsible 
for their conduct. This is a sufficient reason why the greatest 
of their national sins and the consequences of it should not be 
explicitly foretold. 

Before we leave this passage we should remark the great 
change wrought in the mind of this apostle by the Holy Spirit. 
A large volume of Divine knowledge in the mystery of redemp- 
tion had been, as it were in a moment, poured into his soul. 
He had become a new man in knowledge. To him it was 
another sensible fulfilment of his Saviour's promise. John 
xiv. 26; xvi. 13; see 1 John ii. 24 — 27. During the personal 
ministry of the Lord he was scandalized at the prediction of 
his approaching sufferings. Matt. xvi. 22. He could not 
imagine what the rising of the Son of Man from the dead 
could mean. Mark ix. 10. On the morning of the resurrection 
he understood not the Scripture that he must rise from the 
dead, as he now explained it; see notes on John xx. 9; nor had 
he any conception of the Lord's ascension. John xiii. 36. But 
now, these deep and far-reaching mysteries — obscurely taught 
in the Old Testament, as we have seen — were opened. He 
understood the Divine purposes that Christ must suffer, Acts 
ii. 23; Luke xxiv. 26; Acts xxvi. 23; and why it was impos- 
sible he should be holden of death. He understood the pro- 
phecies in a sense he never perceived before, and the purposes 
of the Lord's ascension, and the designed use of the gifts of the 
Holy Spirit. So great a change, suddenly wrought in the mind 
of an unlearned and ignorant man, was a demonstrative proof 
of the presence of the Divine power, and of the truth of his 
testimony to the facts he preached. The character of this 
apostle as delineated in the Gospels, and in the first fifteen 
chapters of the Acts, presents in many respects very striking 
contrasts. 

Acts ii. 37 — 42. The effect of this first sermon of the new 
dispensation is described in these verses. By some it is sup- 
posed that the honour conferred upon Peter by choosing him 
to preach it, and afterwards first to make known the gospel to 
Gentiles, Acts xv. 7, was the fulfilment of the Saviour's pro- 
mise to give him the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. 



558 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Matt. xvi. 19. It is not improbable that this honour was 
included in that promise, but the full import of it, as those 
in Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30, we apprehend will not be 
exhausted until the kingdom of God shall come. Matt. vi. 10. 

Acts ii. 43. "And great fear came upon every soul, and 
wonders and signs were done by the apostles." 

The only miracles of the day of Pentecost, so far as we know, 
were the visible descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles, 
and the discourses they held in new tongues ; for we infer from 
verses 7—11, the other apostles, as well as Peter, proclaimed 
the wonderful works of God, although their discourses are not 
recorded. The reason may be that the matter of each was 
similar, while the language in which it was clothed was various. 
Peter, although he may have spoken in other tongues, pro- 
nounced this discourse in the vernacular of the country, as he 
addressed especially the men of Judea and dwellers of Jerusa- 
lem, verse 14. The wonders and signs spoken of in the verse 
we are now considering, were probably done by the apostles 
after the day of Pentecost, but how long after we have no means 
of determining. Nor are we informed what the miracles were, 
nor by which of the apostles they were performed. There can 
be no doubt, however, they were wrought in proof of the resur- 
rection, Acts iv. 33, and ascension of the Lord Jesus. We 
have seen that such was the use the apostle Peter made of the 
visible descent of the Holy Spirit and the miraculous powers he 
imparted to the apostles. The great miracle of the present 
dispensation, or more accurately, of that brief interval between 
the Passover and the Pentecost, was the resurrection and ascen- 
sion of the Lord Jesus, and it was chiefly to establish and con- 
firm the testimony of the apostles to these great facts, that 
miraculous powers were conferred upon them. To the same 
conclusion, the argument founded upon the miracle recorded in 
the next chapter is directed, Acts iii. 15, 16; iv. 10; but to 
this subject we shall return hereafter. 

The effect of these wonders and signs upon the people at 
large, whatever they may have been, was impressive and con- 
ciliatory, while the chief priests and rulers regarded them with 
indignation, Acts v. 17, and as intended to bring upon them 
guilt in shedding the blood of Jesus. Acts v. 28. They seemed 
the revival of those wonderful powers which that crucified man 
had lately exercised in the face of the whole people. How 
futile the falsehood they invented and put off upon the people 
by the connivance of the guard they set at the sepulchre ! See 
notes on Matt, xxviii. 11 — 15. The apostle does not even 
allude to it as worthy of notice. Thus, the elements of strife 



THE CHURCH. 559 

and persecution were prepared, which very soon subjected the 
apostles to new trials. 

Acts ii. 47. "And the Lord added to the Church daily such 
as should be saved." 

The word (ixxXycna) church occurs in the Gospels only twice, 
and both times in a private conversation which our Lord held 
with his disciples near Csesarea Philippi. Matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 17. 
The word occurs many times in the Greek version of the LXX, 
see 1 Sam. xix. 20; Deut. xviii. 16; xxiii. 1, 2, 3 — 8; xxxi. 30; 
see Trommii Concord. , and usually signifies assembly or con- 
gregation. In the same general sense, it occurs in Acts xix. 39. 
Our Lord, however, adopted this word in a sense peculiar to his 
own purposes, in contradistinction to the popular sense and usage 
of the Jewish people. The Hebrew commonwealth itself was 
(an h.x):rjaco) a church in contradistinction to other nations. 
But it was an ecclesia or church which the Saviour foresaw 
would reject him, and which therefore he would reject for ano- 
ther to be formed out of it and all other nations, by the power 
of the Holy Spirit, which he was about to purchase by his death. 
Hence, in reading the passage in which the word first occurs, 
Matt. xvi. 18, we should place some emphasis on the pronoun 
my; as if he had said, "Though this people know me not (see 
verses 13, 14,) and therefore will reject me, yet by the teach- 
ings of the Holy Spirit, who has taught thee, Simon, the mys- 
tery of my person (verse 17,) I will build my church, (or I will 
build a church for myself in the place of this people,) and 
although I must be put to death, (John xii. 32,) and my people — 
members of my church — shall die; yet death shall not prevail 
against them. For I will rise from the dead, and I will raise 
up my elect also, and gather them to myself as soon as their 
number shall be completed." See notes on Matt. xvi. 18, and 
on Luke xviii. 7. 

In this expression, then, the Lord referred to the true Church 
— that, namely, which is the product of his own Divine power, 
which he will gather out of all people of all ages, and as the 
master-builder erect and glorify. 

The Church thus conceived of is destined to be the glory of 
the New Creation. Its members will constitute, as the Scrip- 
tures give us reason to believe, the most exalted rank of God's 
creatures. They will stand nearest to his throne ; share in the 
glory of the Saviour himself; and be united together, and to 
him ; and through him, to the Father, by bonds which can never 
exist between God and any other order of creatures. This is 
the Elect Church for which the Saviour interceded — "that they 
all may be one, as thou Father art in me and I in thee, that 
they may be one in us .... I in them, and thou in me, that 



560 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

they may he perfect in one." John xvii. 21, 23, and see note. 
The meaning of these words is incomprehensible : eternal ages 
only will fully unfold it. For this Church the Lord has gone to 
prepare a place. John xiv. 2.* This Church he will receive to 
himself at his second coming. John xiv. 3; 1 Thess. iv. 14, 17. 
It is only for the completion of this Church, he delays his com- 
ing. See notes on Luke xviii. 7. Every member of it will 
then be gifted with a body of glory like his own. Philip, iii. 21 ; 
1 John iii. 2; Rom. viii. 29, 30; 1 Cor. xv. 42, 44. It will be 
their happiness to be for ever with the Lord, wherever he may 
be, and to behold his glory. John xvii. 24. Every member of 
it will be angelic in his nature, Luke xx. 36, yet exalted above 
the angels, Heb. i. 4; Rom. viii. 29, being made co-heirs with 
Christ, Rom. viii. 17, and sharers of his glory and his throne. 
John xvii. 22; Rev. iii. 21. 

The inheritance of this Church is not the millennium, nor 
even the earth itself, but all things. 1 Cor. iii. 21, 23; Rom. 
viii. 38, 39. It is a low view of the subject which limits the 
presence and employments of this glorious body of redeemed 
ones to the earth, f They shall indeed reign on earth, Rev. 

* The Saviour does not say, "I go to prepare a mansion (/uov») for you," but 
a place (twos,) intending, perhaps, to intimate thereby, that their mode of 
being and employments will be different from those orders of creatures which 
God has localized in worlds adapted to the particular constitution he has given 
them. "In my Father's house (oIkia) dwelling-place (alluding to the omnipo- 
tence and omnipresence of God and the infinitude of his kingdom, see Heb. 
iii. 4; see Camerarius and Theopnylact in loco) are many mansions, (jucvoli, i. e. 
places prepared as residences or dwelling-places for various orders of intelligent 
creatures.) If it were not so, (if this were the only world God had made for 
creatures to dwell in,) I would have told you. I am now going away to pre- 
pare (tmtcv) a place for you ;" a place for your concourse and departure in 
the service in which you will be employed, as well as of abiding. Such may 
be one of the reasons for changing the word jucvn for tgztoj. 

f Many persons who concur in the belief that the second advent of the 
Lord will be pre-millennial, nevertheless entertain different expectations of 
the state of the world during the millennium. Hence the term millennarian 
has come to denote widely different and even discordant opinions. Some 
things touching the condition of the earth during the millennium are clear, 
while others are left in obscurity. For example, we are expressly taught that 
Satan will be bound and cast out of the earth. Rev. xx. 1 — 7. The earth will 
be delivered, in some large measure at least, from the bondage of the curse ; 
for this deliverance is expressly connected by the apostle Paul with the mani- 
festation of the sons of God, that is, with the resurrection and glorification of 
the Elect Church. Rom viii. 19 — 28. Holiness will everywhere prevail. 
Mai. i. 11. Israel according to the flesh will be restored to the land of the 
covenant, and permanently established therein and made eminently a holy 
people. The theocracy will be re-established over them. The race of man 
will propagate itself as in preceding dispensations. Isa. lxv. 17 — 25. But that 
we can adequately conceive of this new order of things, appears to be as 
impossible as it is to conceive of the order of things, and their adaptation to 
each other, which God has established in some other world into which sin has not 
entered. It will be a new earth. 2 Pet. iii. 13. Whatever it may be, however, 



THE ELECT CHURCH. 561 

v. 10 ; Matt. xix. 28 ; but they shall also reign with Christ for 
ever and ever, and wherever he reigns. 2 Tirn. ii. 12; Rev. 
xxii. 5; xx. 4, 6. The vast realms of the Father's house — 
the universal creation — will be open to them, see notes on 
Matt, xxviii. 9, 10, and notes on John xx. 17; and it will 
be their happiness and their glory to serve him, wherever and 
in whatever he commands. Rev. vii. 15; xxii. 3. 

In Matt, xviii. 17, however, our Lord evidently uses the 
word (ixxtyaca) church to designate the visible Church on earth : 
for he there lays down a rule of discipline which is impractica- 
ble in any other sense. " Moreover, if thy brother trespass 
against thee," &c, &c, "tell it to the Church, and if he neglect 
to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man 
and a publican — regard him as you do those persons, whether 
Jews or Gentiles, who have never professed faith in me, or 
united themselves to your community." 

it is not the inheritance or the hope of the Elect Church. Their inheritance 
is much more exalted, and they will enter upon it at the coming of the Lord. 
This consideration invests the question of the premillennial advent with 
intense interest. It is the great practical point of the whole subject with 
which it is usually connected. Upon this question accordingly, the Scriptures 
are so clear, that they leave no reasonable ground for doubt or hesitation. 
They announce the coming of the Lord as an event constantly to be watched 
for, at all times; as the last article of the last chapter of the "Westminster 
Confession of Faith most explicitly declares. With this event, as has been 
already said, are connected the resurrection of the righteous dead, and their 
exaltation and glorification, together with the living elect. 1 Thess. iv. 14 — 17. 
Consequently it is the epoch around which the hopes and expectations of all 
the members of the mystical body of Christ gather. It will be the epoch of 
their complete and eternal enlargement from the bondage brought upon them 
by sin, and of their conformity to their glorious Head. If the souls of 
believers, during their separate state, are conscious, and capable of exercising 
their intellectual and moral faculties — a question upon which there is not the 
slightest ground for doubt, Philip, i. 21 — 24; 2 Cor. v. 8 — it must be the great 
object of their expectation and desire. For what can they desire so much, as 
to be clothed upon with the bodies of glory promised them? However glorious 
and happy they are now, yet a greater glory and a greater capacity for happi- 
ness is in store for them. Why the possible nearness of the consummation of 
hopes so transcendently glorious, should be repulsive to any who really love 
the Saviour, and love his appearing, 2 Tim. iv. 8 — or why any of the Lord's 
people should feel relieved or comforted by the assurance that their glorious 
Head will certainly delay his coming a thousand years, thereby postponing 
also the promised restitution of all things, Acts iii. 21, for Israel and the 
nations of the earth — are questions hard to explain. See Luke xxi. 28 ; John 
xiii. 37; 2 Cor. v. 4; Rev. xxii. 20; Matt. xxiv. 48. This hope takes nothing 
from the rest of the world. The millennium of blessedness still remains to 
men in the flesh. It will not increase the happiness of the future generations 
of men who shall enjoy that state, to know that the consummation of the hap- 
piness of the saints of former ages is still deferred. On the contrary, it will 
increase it to be assured that glorified beings in their nature, have been com- 
missioned, in the place of angels, for active service among them. If the Scrip- 
tures were obscure or doubtful upon this question, one would suppose that 
every true believer would feel a strong bias to resolve them, if possible, in 
favour of the earlier consummation of his hopes. 

71 



562 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Accordingly we find this word used in both senses in the 
Acts and Epistles of the apostles and the book of Revelation. 
In the first sense it is employed in Eph. i. 22 ; iii. 10 ; v. 25, 
27, 28, 32; Col. i. 18, 24; Heb. xii. 23; see also 1 Pet. i. 1 
and 2. In the latter or lower sense, in Acts v. 11; viii. 1; 
xi. 26; xiv. 23, 27; xv. 3, 22; xviii. 22; Rom. xvi. 5; 1 Cor. 
iv. 17; xiv. 4, 5, 23; xvi. 19; Philip, iii. 6; iv. 15; Col. iv. 
15; 1 Tim. v. 16; Philem. 2; John iii. 6, 9, and other places. 
When used in the plural it is to be so understood ; Acts ix. 31 ; 
xv. 41 ; xvi. 5 ; Rom. xvi. 4, 16 ; 1 Cor. vii. 17 ; xi. 16 ; xiv. 
33, 34; xvi. 1, 19; 2 Cor. viii. 1, 19, 23, &c. 

In this latter sense, the Church is a mixed body, whether we 
consider it as one, united under one visible head, as Romanists 
do, or as many bodies separately organized, and acknowledging 
no headship but Christ. In either form it is, like the ancient 
Hebrew Commonwealth, a people called out, and separated by 
ordinances and outward profession from the rest of the world, 
within which God has an election of grace. Rom. xi. 5, 7. 
To call out, collect, organize, govern, and teach these bodies is 
the appointed work of the Christian ministry, while the Lord 
himself carries on his own proper work of grace, for the most 
part, within their bounds. See notes on Mark xvi. 15, 16. 

In the first sense the Church has not yet appeared. The 
lives of all its members are hid with Christ in God. The 
greater number of them have passed the gates of death, and 
have no longer a local habitation or name on the earth. The 
Head of this invisible body is himself invisible, and it is only 
when he shall appear, that they will appear with him. In the 
verse under consideration it is said, "The Lord added to the 
Church daily such as should be saved." These, no doubt, were 
true converts and members of the Church in both senses of 
the word. Their conversion was the Lord's own work. One 
observation more. In Matt. xvi. 18, our Lord uses the word 
Church prospectively, having respect to the then future work 
of the Holy Spirit.* It is not at all probable that the apostles 

* The phrase Em nairn <rn irtrpa., upon this rock, we repeat, does not refer 
immediately to what Peter had said, but to what the Lord had said in reply to 
Peter. "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it," — viz. the mystery of my 
person as God-man, the Christ — "to thee, but my Father," &c. The truth 
which Peter had declared was beyond the reach of human sagacity to dis- 
cov:r. He could not have learned it except by the teaching of the Spirit, 
and he was blessed, because he had thus been taught and distinguished 
above his fellow-disciples, in having been first taught it. Having pro- 
nounced this blessing upon Simon, and given him a new name, Peter; (taken 
from the Hebrew word, ^£15, see Hesychius and Alberta's Glossaries ad voc, 
also Jerome on Hebrew names,) from that fact the Lord proceeded to make 
the general remark, " and upon this work of the Spirit, (in revealing to others, 
as he has now revealed to thee, the mystery of the Christ as God-man,) as 



THE MIRACLE OF HEALING. 563 

at that time comprehended his meaning. It was one of the 
things they were to be taught by the Paraclete — the Comforter. 
John xiv. 26; xvi. 13. With exact propriety, therefore, St. 
Luke avoids the use of this word to designate the body of 
believers, until after the descent of the Holy Spirit, although 
an uninspired writer, not perceiving this mystery, would have 
found an earlier occasion to use it. See Acts i. 15, 21. 

Acts hi. In the first part of this chapter we have a par- 
ticular account of a miracle of healing performed on a man 
above forty years old, iv. 22, who had been lame from his birth, 
iii. 2. It appears to have been performed without the exercise 
of faith on his part, or even any expectation or hope of the 
benefit he actually received, verses 3 — 5. The apostles Peter 
and John no doubt acted under the promptings of the Holy 
Spirit, with the design to attest their authority, and confirm 
their testimony as witnesses of the resurrection of the Lord. 
Jesus. The place and the hour were fitly chosen for this pur- 
pose, as the event showed.- The miracle suggests many inter- 
esting reflections, but as our object as chiefly to point out the 
use made of it, we pass immediately to the address of Peter.* 

upon a rock, (which can never be removed or shaken,) will I build my Church, 
against which no power — not death itself — shall ever prevail. This explana- 
tion is according to the truth : for no one not taught by the Holy Spirit ever 
really discerns (whatever he may think or profess) the mystery of Christ. 
Unitarianism is a religion of human reason — not of Divine teaching, or know- 
ledge, or power. 

* The miracle was performed while Peter was (>ry?ipe) in the act of raising 
the lame man from his seat, and it consisted in imparting strength to his feet 
and ankles, not the art of using it, verse 7. Hence we may account for the 
irregular effects or actions of the cripple described in the next (8th) verse, 
and for his holding on to both Peter and John as mentioned in the eleventh 
verse. Walking, and even standing in an erect posture, is an art acquired 
by much practice. Dr. Paley somewhere observes, that a child learning to 
walk is the greatest posture master in the world. A man who had never 
attempted to walk or stand erect, until he had acquired the ordinary strength 
of an adult, would get along very awkwardly, if at all. He would not know 
how to put forth his strength in a graduated measure, just sufficient to assume 
an erect position, and walk in an easy and, as we say, natural way. Thus 
considered, the description contains strong internal evidence of its truth. 
Notice the word igawojuivos, it means leaping or springing up. We should 
suppose a man in these circumstances would from want of practice exert his 
newly-received strength suddenly, and to its full extent. Again, he does not 
advance forward in a direct line, but (jrs/xjT^Ta) circuitousiy, and with a bound- 
ing motion (aKkojUivo;) as he went. He kept fast hold of Peter and John, to 
aid him in maintaining the posture of standing; at least he would need to do 
so if the miracle extended no further than to give him strength. We can 
easily believe that the cripple was very joyous, and thankful to God for the 
great blessing conferred on him, in restoring him to perfect soundness, verse 
16, and very grateful to Peter and John, by whom he received it; and we 
concede that such emotions are naturally expressed by external actions, such 
as it is supposed are here described ; yet, upon the supposition that the crip- 
ple had no such emotions, the manner of his rising, his incipient attempts to 



564 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

Acts hi. 12. "And Peter seeing" how all the people ran 
together unto them, in the porch called Solomon's, greatly 
wondering, addressed them thus : 

"Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this, and why look ye 
so earnestly (intently) on us, as though by our own power or 
holiness we had made this man to walk ?" 

By this we learn that the miracle immediately attracted and 
fixed the attention of the people, (of whom there was a large 
concourse at that hour, verse 1 and iv. 4,) upon the apostles 
themselves, and prepared them to listen with respect to what 
the apostles should say. It was designed by the Holy Spirit 
that it should have this effect. It was one of the means HE 
employed to accomplish his own work. Hence Peter, speaking 
as the Spirit gave him utterance, disclaimed for himself and 
John the power or holiness by which this wonderful work was 
done, while the work itself was an incontestable proof of a 
present power and holiness some way connected with their per- 
sons, not unlike that which they had witnessed in the person of 
the Lord Jesus. It -is worthy of remark that the apostle 
ascribes to holiness* (or eixjsfteea, piety) the power of accom- 
plishing miraculous effects. 

Holiness, or piety, is by God's appointment a power, or the 
medium for the transmission of Divine power, as faith is ; imper- 
fectly seen, it is true, in this life, owing to the imperfections of 
the most perfect Christian character. In the world to come, 
however, we have reason to believe its effects will be visible, 
decided, constant, unerring. Why should it be thought incredi- 
ble that a perfectly holy being of any rank or order, whether 
man or angel, should be mightier in strength, or have more 
varied and wonderful powers than a sinful being of any rank 
or order, whether man or devil? See Luke x. 19; iv. 34, 35; 
Mark i. 24; Matt. xxi. 21, 22; Mark xi. 22, 23, 24. 

Having disclaimed all personal efficiency in the work, the 
apostle proceeds immediately to point out the true source of 
the energy invisibly present, and in doing so, he charges them 
with the greatest of their sins. 

Acts hi. 13. " The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of 
Jacob — the God of [all] our fathers, Jiath glorified his Son 

walk, and his laying hold of the apostles for support — considered with regard 
to a man in those circumstances — are described with the truthfulness of 
nature. They could not have been otherwise, unless the miracle imparted with 
the strength to walk the art of using it. See Mark v. 43. 

* Instead of siff^ga* some MSS. have i^oua-iu, or iu&ivux, potestate, robore, viri- 
bus. See Mill. Proleg. 438, Beza in loco. But Beza preferred the common 
reading, as he found no other in any of the MSS. he possessed, and it gives 
an excellent sense, and in all probability is the true reading. See John iii. 
2; ix. 31. 



peter's discourse. 565 

[servant] Jesus, whom ye delivered up; and ye denied [re- 
jected] him in the presence of Pilate, even after he had 
resolved [decided] to let him go [release him]. And [in doing 
this] ye denied [rejected] the Holy and the Just One, and 
desired [preferred] a murderer [Barabbas] to be granted unto 
you [as a more gratifying favour]. But [Jesus] the Prince 
[the author] of life ye killed [hoping thus to destroy him ; but 
in vain for] ; God hath raised him up from [among] the dead, 
of which [fact] we are witnesses." 

This language is very forcible ; observe the varied designa- 
tion of God: "The God of Abraham — the God of Isaac — the 
God of Jacob — the God of all our fathers" — the God of the 
temple, in which you now stand, as worshippers. Observe 
again, the titles he ascribes to Jesus of Nazareth, in whose 
name expressly, verse 6, the miracle was performed. Jesus — 
God's Son — the Holy One — the Just One — Him he declares, 
God hath glorified. We do not understand this word (idozaae) 
glorified in the lower sense of the honour reflected by the 
miracle performed in his name, but in the sense of the exalta- 
tion and glorification of his human person, Acts ii. 33, 36, for 
that was a point to be proved as well as his resurrection from 
the dead. 

Next, the charge: It is direct and personal; for the apostle 
discriminates between the persons whom he addressed and their 
rulers, who were not then present ; and as the very words of the 
apostle were prompted by the Holy Spirit, we safely conclude, 
the very persons who were at that moment gathered around 
the apostles, or at least many of them, were the same who had 
stood before Pilate and vociferously demanded the crucifixion 
of Jesus. See notes on Mark xv. 13; Matt, xxvii. 22; Luke 
xxiii. 21; Mark xv. 14; Luke xxiii. 23. The particulars of 
the charge justify this conclusion, " Whom ye delivered up and 
denied [or rejected in answer to the demand of Pilate when ye 
stood in his presence, and that too] after he had [not only 
declared his innocence, but had] resolved to let him go." To 
such, these words, how appalling ! 

The contrast which the apostle draws between their conduct 
and Pilate's, aggravates immensely their personal guilt; and 
their choice of a murderer, in the exercise of their admitted 
privilege, to have any one released whom they chose, shows that 
the guilt of the people was scarcely less than that of their rulers. 
See notes on Matt, xxvii. 15, 16; Mark xv. 6, 7, 8; John 
xviii. 39, 24; xix. 13, 14. 

Having thus set before his audience their crime, he proceeds 
to declare the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, which he con- 



566 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

firmed by the testimony of John as well as his own, and proceeds 
immediately to ascribe the miracle to the proper cause. 

Acts hi. 16. "And. his name [that is, he, Jesus] through 
[by means of our] faith in his name hath made this man, whom 
ye see and know, [perfectly sound and] strong." 

The cure could not be denied, iv. 14, nor the fact that it 
was performed in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, iii. 6. The 
apostles were known to have been his followers, iv. 13, and 
they professed to follow him still. It seemed a continuance of 
the miraculous powers which the Lord Jesus was known to 
have exercised. Such power proved their authority as servants 
of him whom they acknowledged, and the truth of their testi- 
mony to the facts they proclaimed. For this purpose chiefly, 
we suppose, the miracle was wrought. 

The faith spoken of in this verse, as already intimated, was 
the faith of the apostles. There is nothing in the account of 
the miracle which leads us to believe the cripple was expecting 
to be healed. On the contrary, when, in obedience to the 
command of Peter, he gave heed to the apostles, he did it, 
expecting to receive such alms as they had not to bestow, 
verses 3 — 6 ; whether faith was imparted at the same time with 
the healing power, is a question upon which we have no light; 
but if so, it was not a pre7°equisite to. the miracle. 

Upon this subject it may be remarked that our Lord per- 
formed many miracles, as proofs of his Divine mission and 
authority upon persons incapable of exercising faith — such as 
children, demoniacs, and even the dead, as well as on others, 
who, though capable of faith, did not seek him in the exercise 
of it. John v. 7, 8; Matt. viii. 28, 32; Luke vii. 11—15. 
Peter and John, in this instance, followed his example. The 
chief design of the miracle was to prove the resurrection of the 
Lord Jesus, and his exaltation to glory. It aroused the atten- 
tion of his murderers to that fact, and was made by the Holy 
Spirit the means of convicting many of them. 

But the Lord performed miracles by Ms oivn power, which it 
is unnecessary to add the apostles could not do, either before or 
after his resurrection. See Mark xvi. 17.* 

* When persons sought the Lord during his personal ministry, or his apostles 
after his resurrection, for healing, faith in him was indispensable. In this 
there is no inconsistency. Considered as attestations of authority, or as proofs 
of facts, the object of miracles is quite distinct from the benefits bestowed by 
them. It was necessary that the evidence should be given to fix upon the 
people the responsibility of rejecting the facts proclaimed; and, like the com- 
mon gifts of Providence, it was given especially by our Lord, in the greatest 
profusion, irrespectively of the faith of those who enjoyed the benefits of his 
miracles. But when persons sought him for the blessing, if sincere, they ac- 
knowledged the authority of him whom they approached, and could receive it 
only through their faith in him. 



peter's discourse. 567 

Acts in. 17. "And now, brethren, I know that through 
ignorance ye did it, as also your rulers." 

Observe the change in the apostle's address. He had just 
before charged them as Israelites — their national name — with 
the most heinous of their crimes. Now, he calls them brethren, 
and makes the only extenuation of their guilt which their case 
admitted. They did it ignorantly, yet in the indulgence of 
sinful passions, and against evidence which should have con- 
vinced them, see Acts ii. 23; 1 Cor. ii. 8; 1 Tim. i. 13; but in 
so doing, they had not frustrated — rather they had fulfilled — 
the foretold purposes of God. On this ground he proceeds to 
exhort them, 

Acts hi. 19 — 21. "Repent ye, therefore, and be converted, 
in order that your sins may be blotted out — that times of re- 
freshing may come [okcoq dv eAdwac xaepoe, Luke ii. 35] from the 
presence of the Lord, and that he may send [xou dxooreeAq^ 
Jesus Christ [again] who before was preached [or rather who 
before was ordained or appointed, npoxE-fczcpiopzvov, see Beza's 
Commentary] unto you, whom [nevertheless] the heavens must 
receive [detain or keep from you as a people] until the times of 
[appointed in the Divine counsels for] the restitution of all 
things," &c. 

These verses are not accurately rendered in the common 
English version, as has been observed by many commentators, 
(see Lightfoot, Doddrige, Scott, Adam Clarke,*) and conclusively 
shown by Dr. J. A. Alexander, in his learned commentary on 
the Acts. The translators probably were influenced by their 
doctrinal views concerning the destiny of Israel and the posi- 
tion they occupy in the scheme of the Divine government of 
the earth. That events of such vast magnitude and importance 
as the second personal coming of the Lord, and the restitution 
of all things, should be suspended, by Divine appointment, upon 
the repentance and conversion of Israel, is a proposition which 
many persons find it difficult to receive. In what is Israel 
better than any other people? Rom. iii. 29. Is not the middle 
wall of partition broken down? Eph. ii. 14. Are we not 
taught expressly that there is now no difference between the 
Jew and the Greek? Gal. iii. 28; Col. iii. 11. Such are the 
inquiries of many, to which, they suppose, no answer can be 

* Professor Scholefield, while he evidently prefers the authorized translation 
of ottuh; dv, admits that it is an unusual one. He suggests, that before it is dis- 
carded on that ground, the following examples, among others, should be well 
considered: Rom. xv. 24, £,- s*v; 1 Cor. xi. 34, £« civ; Philip, ii. 23, Josh. ii. 14, 
Sept., i? av. He adds, that Tertullian translated the passage in question, " Ut 
tempora vobis superveniant refrigerii" — Hints for the Improvement of the Author- 
ized Version. 



56} NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

given, consistent with the exhortation of the apostle if it is thus 
understood. 

But we observe that Peter connects the national conversion 
of Israel with the promised times of refreshing, and the resti- 
tution of all- things, that is with a new dispensation — which at 
that time was distant, but not known to be so, even by the in- 
spired apostles — until which, the wall of partition will be broken 
down, and no distinction will be made between Jew or Greek. 
Until this dispensation of the Gospel to the Gentiles, therefore, 
shall be closed, and the Lord shall return, Israel will not be 
restored to their peculiar privileges under the Abrahamic and 
Davidic covenants. Acts xv. 14 — 16. So the apostle teaches. 

Why then, it may be inquired again, should the apostle 
address them at that time by such motives, seeing the present 
dispensation had already commenced, and the times of their 
national restoration to the favour of God were postponed? To 
this inquiry it may be answered: 

While God spared the nation and their temple (about thirty- 
seven years) they could be approached as a community or com- 
monwealth, by the apostles, as they had been by John the 
Baptist and our Lord. It was for this very purpose, we suggest, 
their national existence was mercifully prolonged, peradventure 
they might still repent and believe in Jesus. It was a perad- 
venture, however, only in human regard, though entirely con- 
sonant with the dealings of God with that people, as the ministry 
of John the Baptist and of the Lord himself conclusively proves. 
Acts xv. 18 ; John vi. 44, 45 ; xii. 37 — 41. If we adopt this 
suggestion, we may reasonably account for the form of this 
address of the apostle and the national considerations by which 
he urged their immediate and universal repentance. It supplies, 
also, a reason for the Saviour's command to the apostles to 
begin their preaching at Jerusalem, Luke xxiv. 47, in obedience 
to which command this discourse was delivered. Hence the 
delay to carry the gospel to the Gentiles, which is commonly sup- 
posed to have been about seven years. It is plain also from 
other places, Acts xiii. 46; Rom. i. 16; ii. 9, 10; Acts xi. 19, 
that while the temple stood, the Jews had not entirely lost 
their priority. During all this time, they were regarded and 
treated by the apostles, as the children of the prophets and of 
the covenant, iii. 25; and as such, nationally entitled to the 
blessings of it, on the condition of their national repentance 
and faith, notwithstanding their national sin of rejecting and 
crucifying the Lord Jesus. Consistently with this view the 
apostles themselves observed Levitical rites and permitted their 
Jewish converts to do so. Acts xxi. 20 — 25; xvi. 3; xx. 16. 

These observances, by the apostles are not to be regarded as 



peter's discourse. 569 

temporizing expedients resorted to by them to avoid the effect 
of inveterate Jewish prejudices, but practices proper to be 
allowed, while God permitted the nation to exist and the 
temple to stand. The kingdom of heaven, if we may so say, 
was still at hand in the same sense as when John the Baptist 
and our Lord so preached it. Matt. iii. 2; iv. 17. There was 
no impediment in the way of its immediate establishment in 
either case but the national unbelief and impenitence ; and to 
remove these the Holy Spirit's influences had now been pur- 
chased by the Saviour's death, and were offered to them. 
Hence the first offer of the gospel was made to this people 
under the new dispensation. 

We have no reason to believe God would have permitted the 
Romans to destroy the temple and scatter the people among all 
nations, had they, one and all, obeyed the exhortation of the 
apostle and received the Lord with the obedience of. faith. 
But what form of worship he would have superinduced upon 
that of the temple, or established in its place in the event sup- 
posed, is to us a speculative inquiry. We may suppose, that 
it would have been the same as he will hereafter establish upon 
the restoration and national conversion of that people. Waiving, 
however, such inquiries, we pass on to remark : 

The destruction of the temple and the dispersion of the 
people was a new epoch in their history. Many parts of their 
ritual thenceforth became impracticable. It was no longer 
possible for the preachers of the gospel to approach them as a 
nation. As such they lost their priority during their disper- 
sion, see Rom. ii. 9; iii. 9, and as individuals no difference was 
made or could be made between them and the Gentiles, in the 
bestowment of church privileges. On this ground, we infer 
that special efforts for the conversion of the Jews, during their 
dispersion, though eminently proper, cannot now be enforced 
by the peculiar motives which the apostle here uses. Nor do 
we suppose the organization of them into separate churches, or 
the observance of Levitical rites by Jewish Christians, since 
that event, can be justified by the examples or precepts of the 
apostles during this period; their conduct, in this respect, being 
founded upon the Divine forbearance with the nation in allowing 
them a little further space for repentance, and the gracious pur- 
pose of the Saviour to give them still the first offer of the king- 
dom they had so lately rejected. 

Thus interpreted, this exhortation of the apostle is in har- 
mony with the doctrine concerning the church, as contained in 
the Epistles and other parts of the New Testament. 

Acts iii. 21. " Whom the heavens must receive until the 
times of the restitution of all things," &c. 
72 



570 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

The restitution of all things, of necessity includes the 
restitution of all things contained m the Abrahamic and 
Davidic covenants — as well the things especially promised 
to the posterity of Jacob as those in which the Gentiles have 
a part. With this event the Saviour connects the future 
mission of Elias, Matt. xvii. 11; but his office and work, 
whatever they may be, like John the Baptist's, will be con- 
fined, as we suppose, to Israel, after they shall have been 
restored to their land. With this event, we have seen, are 
also connected the second coming of the Lord, the resurrection 
and the glorification of the Elect, and times of refreshing 
or relief from the effects of the curse. We dwell a little on 
this topic. 

The various dispensations of God's government over the 
earth and man are among the grandest themes of the Bible. 
They are stages or parts of an infinite scheme which join on 
to others yet hidden deep in the Divine mind. Eph. ii. 7. 
They were all appointed and arranged by God the Son ; they 
are upheld and unfolded by his power for the ever increasing 
display of the Divine attributes. Heb. i. 2, 3. 

The first dispensation, of which we have only a brief notice, 
was characterized by the absence, of all physical and moral 
evil, during which man had personal intercourse with his 
Maker. We may call this the dispensation of Paradise, or the 
dispensation of the kingdom of the heavens. Gen. i., ii. ; Lam. 
iii. 38; Rom. viii. 20. How long it continued we do not 
know, but at the fall of man it was closed, and the kingdom 
of the heavens was withdrawn. Gen iii. 17, 18. This kingdom 
was brought nigh again, when John the Baptist appeared, but 
not established, because rejected by the Jews to whom it was 
preached. 

There is a remarkable expression of Moses, in Deut. xi. 21, 
which seems to allude to the physical change in the condition 
of the earth at that epoch. Gen. iii. 18, 19. The lawgiver 
exhorts the people to obedience by the motive, "that their 
days may be multiplied and the days of their children, in the 
land which the Lord sware unto their fathers to give them ; as 
the days of heaven [literally of the heavens] upon earth;" as 
if he had said, days of blessedness and glory such as the world 
does not now enjoy — days of Paradise, such as the world 
enjoyed before the blessings of God's kingdom were withdrawn. 
The exhortation is not unlike that of Peter, in Acts iii. 19, for 
the days of the heavens, understood in the sense of the prophet, 
would be days of refreshing in the sense of the apostle, 
However this may be, at the fall of man a new dispensation 
came over the earth; God withdrew his kingdom and permitted 



THE DIFFERENT DISPENSATIONS. 571 

the powers of evil to prevail, yet set bounds to them as 
he did to the sea, which they should not pass. Gen. iii. 17, 18; 
John xiv. 30; xii. 31; xvi. 11; Eph. ii. 2; Col. ii. 15; 
Heb. ii. 14. The earth was subjected to vanity and cor- 
ruption. Rom. viii. 20. In the bold and figurative language 
of Paul, the creature, that is, the whole fabric of physical 
nature, and man also, was made to groan and travail in pain 
together, under the displeasure of the Creator. Rom. viii. 22. 
The change was vast beyond our conceptions. Whether it 
came over the world suddenly, as the blight and withering of 
the fig-tree the Lord cursed, Mark xi. 14, 20, 21; Matt. xxi. 
19, 20, or gradually, as some have supposed, it would be 
fruitless to inquire. But, however wrought, it was quite a 
different order of things. We may call it the dispensation of 
the fall, or of the curse, or of the kingdom of the heavens with- 
drawn. Rom. v. 12. This dispensation still continues, yet not 
without the hope of restitution. Rom. viii. 20. For God has 
purposed to repair the mighty ruin — and ruin it is, though it 
seem fair and beautiful to man who knows nothing better — 
and restore the former state. 

Our Lord, with allusion to his first work of creation, calls 
this his purposed work of restitution, the regeneration, palin- 
genesia, or second creation. Rev. xxi. 5. The apostle Paul 
refers to the same restitution in Eph. i. 10, by the words 
" dispensation of the fulness of times," that is, the dispensation 
appointed to ensue upon the completion of the order of things 
now existing; as does the apostle Peter, in his second Epistle, 
chap. iii. 7, 13, and the passage under consideration. See 
Isa. lxv. 17—25. 

These are the great dispensations made known to us, of 
which most commentators have not taken sufficient notice. 
Those which they have chiefly enlarged upon, are really 
subdivisions of the dispensation introduced by the fall, and 
the coming in of the curse. But these are subordinate 
and remedial in their nature, and subservient in their de- 
sign, to the coming of the kingdom of God on earth, 
the expulsion of sin, and the cause of every physical and 
moral evil. In their progress, they display to all creatures 
in all worlds the attributes and the glory of God, in a 
manner which otherwise, so far as we can know, would 
have been impossible, consistent with the Divine wisdom 
and goodness. The manifestation of the essential attributes 
of the Godhead thus made, considered relatively to the 
eternal well-being of the universe, is a good immeasurably 
surpassing the evils resulting from the temporary and com- 



572 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. 

paratively brief disorder permitted in this world. But to 
resume : 

The first of these subordinate dispensations is commonly 
called the Patriarchal. It began with the birth of the first 
man, and continued universal, until the whole race, excepting a 
few, was swept from the face of the earth. This period in the 
history of man is called by St. Peter "the world that then was," 
2 Epist. iii. 6, intimating that it was essentially a different con- 
dition of things from that which now exists. The patriarchal 
economy was re-established with Noah ; and with respect to the 
larger part of his descendants, has ever since remained un- 
changed. See Sir G. H. Rose's Essays — Article, China. Its 
results are visible in the abominations of idolatry. In respect 
to the posterity of Jacob, this economy ended at their exodus 
from Egypt, under the leadership of Moses, and the giving of 
the law at Mount Sinai fifty days afterwards. That people 
were then brought into new covenant relations with God, and 
thenceforward were regarded as a peculiar and elect people. 
Exod. xix. 5, 6 ; Numb, xxiii. 9. The economy thus estab- 
lished over this small portion of the human family terminated 
with the mysterious rending of the veil of the temple; to be 
succeeded by the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. This, like 
the patriarchal dispensation, is universal in its scope, but not so 
in its effects. The especial design of it is to gather an elect 
people out of all nations, Acts xv. 14, not the universal salva- 
tion of all men, in any age of it. Universal holiness belongs 
only to the times of the kingdom of God, Matt. vi. 10, when 
the tempter will be cast out, Rev. xx. 3, 10; John xii. 31, 
and all things restored. Then, as we have reason to believe, 
the Holy Spirit will act with powers unknown since the 
fall. As at the beginning, Gen. i. 2, his energies will be felt 
again by physical nature, and the sphere of his operations on 
the moral nature of man will be universal. 

When we consider the vastness of this scheme of dispensa- 
tions; (or even of the parts in which almost the whole history 
of man, and of God's dealings with him hitherto, are included,) 
and reflect that the whole rests and turns upon the God-man, 
Christ Jesus, Isa. ix. 6, we are apt to forget the humanity-side 
of his character. That a Being so great, so glorious, should 
become incarnate, in order to die in the nature assumed, is a 
mystery, the scope, design, and the effect of which the Spirit 
of God alone can comprehend. 1 Cor. ii. 8 — 11. 

The particular place which we occupy in the scheme, is 
several times called in Scripture the last days, Heb. i. 2; 
2 Tim. iii. 1 ; 2 Pet. iii. 3 ; James v. 3 ; see 1 Pet. i. 5, 
20 ; Jude xviii., by which expression we understand the ulti- 



THE RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS. 573 

mate subdivision or portion of the second of the great dis- 
pensations before meDtioned — viz. the Dispensation of the 
Fall. We infer from it that no other economy will intervene 
before the restitution of all things spoken of in this verse.* 

The words, "restitution of all things," it is unnecessary to 
observe, imply a former condition of things, which does not at 
present exist. See Matt. xii. 13, Gr., also Mark iii. 5. Taking 
the words in the largest sense, as we should, they carry us 
back to the perfect work of the Creator at the beginning, which 
he pronounced very good. Gen. i. 31. No condition inferior 
to this can properly be called a restitution, nor be well pleasing 
to God, all whose works and ways are perfect. The times of 
restitution, we have seen, depend on the personal coming of 
Christ, which under no preceding economy since the fall, has 
been precisely revealed. Gen. iii. 15 ; xlix. 10 ; Isa. vii. 14 ; 
Dan. ix. 24; Luke ii. 26; xxi. 25—28; Mark xiii. 32; 
1 Thess. v. 2, 3. Conditionally they were connected with 
the first coming of Christ, Exod. xix. 5, 6; Matt, xxiii. 
37 ; Luke xix. 41 — 44, but as the Jews rejected him, the king- 
dom was taken from them, Matt. xxi. 43, and the restitution 
deferred, until another elect people should be formed and sub- 
stituted in their place. 1 Pet. ii. 9. It is still deferred only 
because this elect body — the Church — is not yet completed. 
See notes on Luke xviii. 7. 

Do we inquire in what the restitution will consist? or how 
far the things now seen will be altered? or according to what 
scheme or fashion (o xocr^oz) the world will be framed or 
formed? 1 Cor. vii. 31. We can form no adequate conception, 
either of the transformation itself, or of the power by which it 
will be wrought. We can only say, in the words of inspiration, 
the whole of this lower creation shall be delivered from the 
bondage of corruption, and' made to share in some way in the 
glorious liberty of the children of God. Rom. viii. 21. Nor 
do we know whether the restitution will be accomplished all at 
once or progressively; although there is some ground to believe 
that the final dispensation will be divided into subordinate 
economies of increasing glory, as the dispensation of the fall 
has been. The apostle Paul intimates, Eph. ii. 7, that God has 
in store for his elect people (iu ro^ alwac -o>z i-sp^o^o^) a 
series or ascending scale of economies or stages through which 
they shall advance from glory to glory. 2 Cor. iii. 18. The 

* In 2 Pet. iii., we find the expression W \<r^ncv t» »/uq>a>v {tm \<r^cLTm) by 
which the apostle intends the ending, or the latter part, of the undefined period 
called "the last days." His object is to direct the mind of his readers, not 
to the last days generally, but to the latter portion of the last days, and show 
a sign of the near approach of the new dispensation. 



574 NOTES ON SCRIPTURE. - 

world itself may also in like manner have progress towards 
higher degrees of blessedness and glor y. 

It has been made a question whether the millennium will not 
be the initiatory economy of the restitution, to be followed by 
others of which we have not a distinct notice. Others positively 
maintain that the millennium will precede the coming of the 
Lord, and of course the restitution of all things. This opinion 
is irreconcilable with the doctrine of Scripture concerning the 
uncertainty or possible nearness of the coming of the Lord, so 
far as men can know or be assured, and should therefore be 
rejected as erroneous. If, however, we regard the millennium, 
according to the first opinion, as the introductory economy of 
the restitution of all things, the next two verses convey an 
intimation of great changes in the Divine government then to 
be established over Israel. 

Acts hi. 22, 23. "For Moses truly said unto the fathers, 
A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your 
brethren, like unto me : him shall ye hear in all things. And 
it shall come to pass that every soul which will not hear that 
prophet shall be destroyed from among the people." Deut. 
xvii. 15, 18, 19. 

These words of Moses have respect chiefly to the coming of 
Christ at and for the restitution of all things. In a qualified 
sense, we may apply the 23d verse to the Jews, at the first 
coming of Christ, when in consequence of their sins they were 
destroyed as a nation, though still preserved as a race. Pro- 
perly, however, they signify the excision of individuals from 
the nation, and not the destruction of the nation as such. But 
understood of the whole body as a nation hereafter to be 
restored to their land under the new dispensation, they import 
that Israel, at least, shall be all righteous, as Isaiah foretells, 
chaps, lx. 21; liv. 13. The rule of duty for them, will be 
perfect obedience in all things. Transgressors, should there 
be such, we are taught by these verses will be visited with 
immediate and condign punishment, each for himself. Matt. 
v. 48; Jer. xxxi. 29, 30; Isa. lxv. 20. The word (i^oXodpeu- 
drjGEvat) translated destroyed, signifies much more, we appre- 
hend, than excommunication from the Church. It means 
physical destruction or extermination, see Vulgate, Erasmus, 
Montanus, and such appears to be the sense of the passage the 
apostle quotes. Thus interpreted, the words declare a rule of 
government which has never yet been applied to that people. 
Nothing sinful will then be permitted to Israel on account of 
the hardness of their hearts. Matt. xix. 8. The words imply 
also the restoration of Theocracy in the perfect form of the 
kingdom come. Matt. vi. 10. Then their sins, should sinners 



THE RESTITUTION OF ALL THINGS. 575 

be found among them, Isa. lxv. 20, will be committed without 
temptation, Rev. xx. 2, 9, against light and knowledge, Jer. 
xxxi. 34; Heb. viii. 11, and in despite of the Holy Spirit's 
influences and the greatest earthly blessings. Luke xii. 48. 
The apostles, we are taught, will in some way have rule over 
them, yet, in what manner they will exercise their government, 
it is impossible, from the light we now have, to conjecture. 
But the language of the Saviour, Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke xxii. 30, 
does not compel us to believe that they will dwell on the earth, 
or at all times visibly appear among their tribes, or sit on 
thrones of earthly splendour. It must be confessed, however, 
that the whole subject of the coming dispensation lies beyond 
the sphere of our conceptions. So great, so universal will the 
change be, whenever and by whatever degrees introduced and 
perfected, that the former earth will not be remembered nor 
come into mind. Isa. lxv. IT. What is supernatural now may 
be natural then, and what is now natural, may then, should it 
occur, be miraculous. In other words, there is nothing in man 
or in nature as they now are, which can serve us as an adequate 
standard of conception. See notes on Matt. iii. 2; xix. 28; 
also, notes on John xviii. 36, for further remarks on the subject 
of the kingdom. 

One observation more : "We have seen that the fall of Israel 
retarded the times of the restitution. The falling away of the 
Church, 2 Thess. ii. 3, has also retarded them. The restitution 
still depends upon the repentance of Israel, but Israel is given 
over to blindness until the period allotted for the gathering of the 
elect Church shall have elapsed, Rom. xi. 25, and this event by 
the Divine purpose is made to depend upon the universal pro- 
mulgation of the gospel among all nations. Matt. xxiv. 14. 
The times of restitution, therefore, humanly speaking, depend 
upon the full execution of the Saviour's last command. Matt, 
xxviii. 19, 20; Mark xvi. 15. 



THE END. 



INDEX OF CONTENTS 



Abraham, 36. 

Adam, 89, 210, 363. 

Advent, 138, 272, 323, 324, 530, 531. 

Aloes, 441. 

Angels, 200, 280, 281, 465, 468, 459, 463, 

468, 469, 539. 
Apostles, 136, 189, 191, 192, 193. 
, their ambitious desires, 227, 

228, 229. 

call, 100. 



, care extended over them, 101, 

102. 

commission, 101, 191. 

■ ■ after Christ's as- 
cension, 533, 534. 

deficiency in a clear appre- 
hension of Christ's deity, 185. 

, distinctions between their 

missions before and after Christ's 
resurrection, 102, 103, 104. 

condition in the new dispen- 
sation, 220. 

limited views of the kingdom 

of God, 543, 544, 545. 

, ministry committed to them, 

189, 191. 

, power conferred on them, 

100, 101. 

, title given by them to the 

Saviour in their Epistles, 189. 

Arimathea, 439. 

Ascension, 480, 481, 514, 515, 536, 537, 
538, 539, 544. 

Augustus Ceesar, 384. 

Avarice, 302, 303. 



B 

Baptism appointed by our Lord after 
his resurrection, 56, 214. 

a seal of discipleship, 534. 

introductory to every new dis- 
pensation, 541. 

in Jordan, why? 55. 

of Christ, 61, 62. 

of infants, 534. 

of the nation, emblematical, 



Barabbas, 361, 362, 363, 364. 
Barnabas, 514, 515. 
Bethany, 514. 
Bible, 3*9, 40. 
Burial, 441, 442, 443. 



Carcass, symbol employed by our Lord, 

320. 
Centurion, healing of his servant, 82, 

83, 435. 
Children dving in infancy, their safety, 

197, 198, 199. 
, fearful responsibility of those 

who are the occasion of their trans- 
gressions, 199. 
Christ, charges against him, 335, 336, 

337. 

, description of him, 340, 343. 

forsaken of the Father, 426, 427. 

, last presentation of him to the 

Jews as their King, 390, 391. 
, Master and Monarch of all, 299, 



300. 



375. 



mocking of him, 353, 373, 374, 



mystery of his person, 153, 154. 

Christ's appearances after his resurrec- 
tion, 471, 472, 479, 487, 498, 502—507. 

ascension, 544, 545. 

body, 500. 

communication to his disciples, 

on his last journey to Jerusalem, 
225, 226, 227. 

cross-bearing, 397, 398. 

- deposit of his spirit, 429, 430. 

glorification, 548, 549, 550, 551, 



552. 



56, 57. 

of the Holy Ghost, 58. 

with fire, 58, 59, 60. 

73 



241. 



kingdom, 191, 192. 

lamentation over Jerusalem, 240, 

L. 

prophecv of the destruction of 
Jerusalem, 242, 243. 
— last day of public ministry, 249. 
to his brethren, 475, 



476. 

— mission to the people of Israel 
as Son of Man, 200. 

— personal ministry, 124. 

— priestly office, 188. 

— redemption work, 190, 191, 192. 



578 



INDEX OF CONTENTS. 



Christ's resurrection, 509. 

sacrificial work typified, 473. 

■ , its result, 232. 

triumphal entry into Jerusa- 
lem, 235, 236, 237, 238, 389, 240. 

work of humiliation finished, 



428, 429 
Christian ministry, 534. 
Church, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 534, 

559, 560, 561, 562. 
Cleopas, 487. 
, his walk to Emmaus with 

Jesus, 488, 489. 
-, his defective views of the office 



and work of Jesus, 493, 494. 

his recognition of Jesus, 496. 



Coat, typical, 413. 

Cohort, 371, 372. 

Coinage, 278. 

Complement of evidence of Christ's 

universal government over the 

world, 91. 
Corban, 395. 
Covenant, 34, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 

50, 64, 189, 260, 261, 262, 282, 283. 
Crown of thorns, 373, 374. 
Crucifixion, 335. 

D 

David, 36, 153, 154, 157. 

, his conceptions of the Adam of 

the covenant, 94, 95, 96. 

Demons, their knowledge, 91, 92. 

Disciples, 195, 227, 86. 

questions and impressions re- 
specting the temple, the Lord's 
coming, and end of the world, 310, 
311, 312, 313, 314. 

Dispensation of the fall, or of the king- 
dom of the heavens withdrawn, 
570, 571. 

of Paradise, or of the king- 
dom of the heavens, 570. 

of the fulness of times, 



571. 

Divine sovereignty, 223, 224. 
Dream of Pilate's wife, 359, 360. 



Earth, grace and goodness of God beau- 
tifully illustrated in its redemp- 
tion, 201, 202. 

quaking, 432. 

Earthly relations absorbed in the per- 
fect union of the Redeemer, 125, 
126. 

Eighth day, 515. 

Elect, in what their happiness will 
consist, 230, 231, 283. 

Election, doctrine of, 274. 

of grace, 305, 306. 

Elect Church, 321, 322, 559. 

, its inheritance, 560. 

Elias, 178, 180, 181. 

Elijah, his Ministry, 64. 



Emmaus, 487. 

End, a limited and an enlarged sense, 

315, 316, 317. 
Ephraim, 49. 
Epistles, 128, 129. 
Esther, Book of, 256. 
Eusebius, 486. 
Evangelists, 39, 116, 335. 

moral demonstration of 



their inspiration, 318, 319. 
Excommunication, 205. 



Faith, effects, 80. 

, office of, 81. 

, in its source, 81. 

— , its full power, 81, 144, 185, 186. 
of sympathizing friends, 82, 83, 



92. 



247 248. 



False Christs, 314, 315, 320. 

Fasting, 187. 

Fear, exemption from, 88. 

Feast of Pentecost, 552. 

Females, 436. 

Fig-tree withered, 247. 

First sermon of the new dispensation, 

554, 555, 556, 557. 
Forgiveness, 207. 

G 

Gabbatha, 330. 

Gideon, 45. 

Golgotha, 404. 

Gospel of Matthew, for whom written, 
35. 

, for whom pre- 
served, 35. 

, effect upon those who are 

called, 273. 

, effect upon those who are 

chosen, 273, 274. 

narrative, remarks on, 477. 



Government, form of, 45, 46. 
Graves, 482. 
Green tree, 403. 
Grotius, 400. 

H 

Hades, 263. 

Harmony of chapters, 446 — 453. 

Harvest-field, 98, 99. 

Herod, 44, 47, 49, 50, 51. 

the Tetrarch, 133, 134, 135, 136. 

Antipas, 348, 349, 350, 351, 352, 



353. 

Herodians, 275, 276. 
High Priest, 473. 
Holy Spirit, 304. 

, his work, 525. 

, first outpouring, 553, 554. 

Holy Ghost, 511, 512, 513. 

Holiness, 564. 

Horsley, Bishop, on 2 Samuel vii. 19, 

pp. 95, 96. 



INDEX OF CONTENTS. 



579 



Hosannas, 239, 240. 
Hushing the tempest, 88, 



Immanuel, 39, 40, 41. 

Incarnation, 40, 370, 454, 455, 456. 

Infants, baptism of, 534. 

Infidels, futility of their arguments, 524, 

Infirmities, 83. 

Israel, 189. 

— , restoration to their land, 180, 

181. 



Jesus, characteristic of his life, 48. 

, call always effective, 97. 

casting out demons, 89, 90, 91, 

92. 



73. 



-, commencement of his ministry, 

exposes the absurdity of the 
Pharisees, 118, 119, 120. 

— fulfilling the law, 76, 77. 
— , genealogy, 33, 34, 35, 36. 
— , Immanuel, 39. 

— , importance of distinctions made 
by him in the different relations he 
sustained, 114. 

— Messiahship, proofs of, 33, 34. 

— ministry, 73. 
to the Jews, 102. 

— , non-assumption of his title 
(Christ) during his personal min- 
istry, 296, 297. 

— observance of rules of human 
prudence, 115. 

— , offer of John to the nation, 107. 
— , power of hi6 word, 47. 
— , preacher of the law, 75. 
— , power over nature, 88, 89. 
— , power as Son of Man and Lord 
of the Sabbath illustrated, 115. 
— , prerogative as Son of Man, 93. 
— , prerogatives annexed to his hu- 
man nature, 93, 94. 
— , prerogatives of his divine nature 
to be considered, 93, 94. 
— , son of Joseph, 38. 

-, title, Son of Man, 84, 85, 



113, 114. 

— , title, Messiah, 86. 
-, worshipped, 517, 518. 



90, 



John, 51, 52, 136, 137, 138, 187. 

, Baptist, why so called, 52, 53. 

, character, 108. 

, Eli as not in person, but equal to 

him, 53, 54. 

, eminence, 50. 

, death, significancy and import- 
ance of that event, 136, 137, 138. 

, imprisonment prolonged, for what 

purpose, 72, 73. 

, need of Christ's baptism, 61. ' - 

, office and authority, 68, 69. 



John, message of inquiry to Jesus by 

his disciples, 106, 107. 
, minister of the circumcision, 56, 

148. 

, mystery of his person, 153. 

, preacher of repentance, 64. 

, why sent to the nation, 107, 108. 

Jonas, 301. 

Joseph of Arimathea, 438. 
Judas, 100, 101, 331. 
Judaism, 204. • 
Judgments, 264, 265. 
Judged nations, 325. 



K 



Kennicott, Dr., on 2 Samuel vii. 19, 95. 
Kings, 44, 45, 46. 
Kingdom of God, 261, 262, 263. 
-, law of, 297. 



Kingdom of the heavens, 46, 210, 211, 
343. 

, what it in- 



cludes, 215, 216. 
Kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, 
Ac, exposition, 110, 111, 112. 

, spirit of its inhab- 



itants, 196. 



Labourer, 99. 

Labourers in the vineyard, special use 

of this parable, 223, 224. 
Last days, 572. 
Land, Immanuel's, 40, 41. 
Law, Ecclesiastical or Canon, 207. 
Law, predictive as well as preceptive, 

76, 77. 
Legal dispensation, 260. 
Legislative sanction, 298, 299. 
Leper, healing of, 80. 

, typical import, 81. 

Erasmus's opinion, 81. 



Levitical rites, 294, 398, 568, 569, 
Lord's Prayer, petitions, 79. 
Luke, 258. 

M 

Machaerus, 138. 

Malefactor, 418, 419, 420. 

, his prayer, 420, 421. 

Man a microcosm, 213, 163. 

Mark, 257, 258, 335. 

Mary, the mother of our Lord, com- 
mended to the care of John the 
disciple, 423, 424. 

Mary Magdalene at the Sepulchre, 468 
—472. 

, her touch prohibited, 



-, distinction conferred 



472, 473. 



on her, 474. 



son, 474. 



a representative per- 



580 



INDEX OF CONTENTS. 



Matthew, chief object in the beginning 

of his gospel, 39. 

, quotations, 84. 

, description of the Saviour's 

tour, 98. 
, citation of passage from Isa. 

xlii. 1—4, 116. 
Matthew, 258, 259, 335. 
Melchizedec, 232. 
, his priesthood, 233, 234, 

235. 
Messiah, his kingdom, 325. 

, 378, 379, 402. 

Military guard on watch, 481, 482, 483, 

484, 485. 
Millennium, 574, 575. 
Miracles, 48, 69, 70, 74, 75, 80, 85, 91, 

97, 98, 100, 117, 118, 132, 133, 139, 

140, 141, 142, 143, 558, 564, 565, 148, 

149, 151, 152. 
Miraculous darkness, 425, 426. 
evidence insufficient to beget 

faith, 523, 524. 

powers. The actual condi- 



tion of the Apostles in respect to 
them, during our Lord's personal 
ministry, 182, 183, 184. 

Modern Jews, 378. 

Money changers, 243, 244. 

Mount of Olives, 544, 545. 

Mysteries of Christ's nature, 87, 88. 

, his person, 153. 

N 

Nation's hope, 37. 

Nation to whom the kingdom shall be 

given, 262, 263. 
Nations, distress of, 322, 323. 
National conversion of Israel — views 

of, 568, 569. 
Nicodemus, 441, 442. 



Oaths, 77. 
Offences, 202, 203. 
Omniscience, 522. 



Palace, 339. 

Palingenesia, 213. 

Parables divided into public and pri- 
vate instruction, 126, 127. 

belonging to the category of 

public instruction, 127. 

belonging to the category of 

private instruction, 131. 

of the two sons, 252, 253. 

of the vineyard, 255. 

, its great lesson, 259, 260, 261. 

of the Marriage, 266—274. 

, interpretation of it furnishes 

a motive for Missions, 271, 272. 
of the ten virgins, 332. 



Peace — "Let your peace," &c, 102. 

Pentecostal gifts, 548. 

Persecutors, 360, 361. 

Personal reign, 218, 219. 

Peter, 173, 462, 467, 497, 528, 529, 530. 

, change wrought in his mind by 

the Holy Spirit, 557. 
, his confession of Christ, 156, 

157, 165. 
, supremacy over the other Apos- 
tles — argument against, 158. 

, first sermon, 554, 555, 556. 

, its effect upon the people, 557, 

558. 
Pharisees, 115, 293, 294, 295, 300, 302, 

303, 304, 305. 
Pilate, 331, 380, 381, 382, 383, 393, 439, 

440, 485, 486. 

, his character, 339. 

, his sin, 340, 384, 385, 386. 

, his opinion of the charge against 

Jesus, 341. 
, his ignorance of the nature, 

glory, and extent of our Lord's 

kingdom, 342. 
, his astonishment at the silence 

of Jesus, 348, 349. 
-, his probable motive in sending 



Jesus to Herod, 349, 350. 

— , his resumption of the trial of 
Jesus, 354. 

— , his injustice, 355, 356, 358. 

— , his consultation with the peo- 
ple, 364. 

— , his imprudence, 365. 

— , his observance of the ceremony 
of washing of hands, 367, 368. 

— , his cruel treatment of Jesus, 
369, 370. 

— , his interruption of the execu- 
tion of his own sentence, 374, 375. 

— , his presentation of the Messiah 
to the people, 375. 

— , his reproach of the obstinacy of 
the Jews, 376. 

— , his perplexities, 380. 

— , his inquiry of Christ as to his 
origin, 380, 381. 

— , his power, 382, 383, 384. 
-, his convictions, 389. 



Powers of the redeemed in their glori- 
fied state, 89, 86. 

Power of pardoning sins, 512, 513. 

Potter's field, 395. 

PrEetorium, 330, 371. 

Preaching, 129. 

Priests' disregard of their own law of 
the Sabbath, 444, 445. 

Prophets, burden of, 76. 

Prophecies, 494. 



E 



Paradise, 216. 
Patriarchal economy, 572. 



Eachel, 49, 51. 

Eama, 49. 

Eedemption, 108, 208, 209. 



INDEX OF CONTENTS. 



581 



Eegeneration, 209, 213, 215, 219. 

Eeign of Christ, 218. 

Eestitution of all things, 219—223, 570, 

573. 
Eesurrection, 280, 281, 282, 453, 454, 

523. 
Eevelation of St. John, 328. 
Eoman laws, 332. 

Roman custom, 409, 412, 414, 437, 438. 
Eoman computation of time, 414. 
Eocks rending, 432. 



Sabbath-day, 436, 444. 

Sabbath-breaking, 113, 114, 115. 

Sabbath-day's journey, 545. 

Sadducees, 66, 279, 284, 285. 

Saints (risen) 432, 433, 434. 

Samaritans, 37. 

Satan, 118, 119, 120, 359, 360, 370, 372, 
373,386,387, 388, 399. 

Saviour, important change in his pub- 
lic and private discourses and mi- 
racles, 137. 

dividing his public ministry 

into two portions, 138. 

intercourse with his disciples, 



142, 143. 

, his ministry, 150. 

-, mystery of his person, 153, 



154. 



-, public assumption of the title 



of Christ, 160 

method in the instruction of 



his disciples, 161. 
Scribes, 293, 294, 300, 302, 303,304, 305, 

306. 
Scourging, 369, 370. 
Self-humiliation, 298, 299. 
Sepulchre, 457—165. 
Sheaf, typical, 515, 516. 



Simon a Cyrenian, 39S, 399, 400. 

Sins, 207. 

against the Son of Man, and 

against the Holy Spirit, 121. 

Solomon, 36. 

Soldiers, 437, 438. 

Son of Man, 104, 105, 113, 114, 164, 165, 
166, 167, 168,245,290. 

Soul, its value, 163, 164. 

, its consciousness in a state of sepa- 
ration from the body, 421, 422. 

Spirit world, 499, 500. 

Spiritual natures, 471, 472. 

Stone, 264. 

Superscription, 409, 410,411, 412. 



Teacher, 131, 132. 
Tempest, 87, 309, 310. 
Testimony, Herod's, 44. 
Thomas, 519—523. 
Theocracy, 45, 46, 303, 323. 
Transfiguration, 165 — 175. 
Tribes, 5, 45, 46, 49, 50, 221, 402. 
Tribute, 193, 194, 195, 335, 336, 337. 
Trinity, 378. 



U 
Uxf allen worlds, 210. 



Veil of the temple, 431. 

W 

Whitby on second coming, 530. 

Witnesses, 539. 

Women at the sepulchre, 457, 45S, 460, 

461, 467. 
World, 316, 317, 343. 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



Chap, 



51, 



MATTHEW. 

i.l, 

i. 2, 

i. 6, 

i. 12, 

i. 16, 

i. 23, 

i. 24, 

i. 18—25, 

ii. 

ii. 2, 

ii. 12, 13, 

ii. 18, 

iii. 1, 2 

iii. 3, 

iii. 6, 

iii. 11, 

iii. 12, 

iii. 14, 

iii. 15, 

iii. 17, 

iv. 12—17, 

iv. 17, 

iv. 23, 24, 

v. vi. vii. 

v. 17, 18, 

v. 34, 

vi. 9, 

vi. 10, 

viii. 2, 3, 

viii. 5—13, 

viii. 17, 

viii. 20, 

viii. 23—27, 

viii. 23, 

viii. 24, 

viii. 25, 26, 

viii. 27, 

viii. 28—32, 

viii. 29, 

ix. 2, 

ix. 4, 

ix. 9, 

ix. 18—31, 

ix. 35,36,37, 

x. 1. 

x. 5, 7, 

x. 9, 10, 



PAGE. 
33 

35 

36 
36 
38 
39 
41 
42 
43 
44 
47 
49 
64,210 
53 
54 
55 
59 
61 
62 
63 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
79 
82 
83 
84 
85 
87 
87 



91 

92 
93 
97 
97 
98 
99 
101 
101 



Chap. 



x. 12, 13, 14, 

x. 15, 18, 

x. 23, 

xi. i. 

xi. 2—15, 

xi. 3, 

xi. 10, 

xi. 12, 13, 

xi. 25—27, 

xii. 8, 

xii. 9—13, . 

xii. 14, 15, 

xii. 18, 19, 

xii. 20, 22—24, 117 



PAGE. 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
108 
109 
110 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 



xii. 25. 

xii. 26, 27,28, 

xii. 29, 31, 32, 

xii. 33, 

xii. 38, 

xii. 43—45, 

xii. 46—50, 

xiii. 

xiii. 24—30, 

xiii 37—43, 

xiii. 44, 45, 



xiii. 58, 
xiv. 1, 2, 
xiv. 3, 

xiv. 4, 5, 6—9, 
xiv. 10, 
xiv. 13, 16, 
xiv. 17, 18—21, 
xiv. 22—33, 
xiv. 28, 
xiv. 29, 30, 31, 
xiv. 32, 33, 
xv. 12, 13, 



118 
119 
120 
121 

122 
124 
125 
126 
129 
130 
131 



xiii. 47—51, 52, 131 



132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
138 
139 
141 
143 
144 
146 
147 



xv. 21, 22—28, 148 



xv. 30, 
xvi. 4, 
xvi. 6, 7, 
xvi. 13, 14, 
xvi. 15, 
xvi. 16, 
xvi. 17, 
xvi. 18, 19, 
xvi. 20. 



149 
150 
151 
153 
155 
156 
157 
158 
160 



Chap 



PAGE. 

xvi. 21, 22, 23, 161 

xvi. 21—27, 

xvi. 26, 

xvi. 27, 

xvi. 28, 

xvii. 1, 

xvii. 2, 

xvii. 4, 

xvii. 9, 

xvii. 10, 11, 

xvii. 11, 

xvii. 12, 

xvii. 14—21, 

xvii. 16, 

xvii. 19, 20, 

xvii. 21, 

xvii. 22, 23, 

xvii. 24, 25, 26 

xvii. 27, 

xviii. 1, 

xviii. 2, 3, 

xviii. 4, 5, 

xviii. 6, 

xviii. 10, 11 



162 
163 
164 
165 
169 
170 
173 
174 
176 
179 
177 
181 
181 
184 
186 
188 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
199 
200 



xviii. 12, 13, 14, 201 



xviii. 15, 

xviii. 16, 17, 

xviii. 18, 

xviii. 21, 22, 

xix. 24—26, 

xix. 27, 28, 

xix. 29, 30, 

xx. 1—16, 

xx. 17, 19, 

xx. 20, 21, 

xx. 22, 23, 

xx. 24, 

xx. 25—27, 

xx. 28, 

xxi. 1 — 11, 

xxi. 1, 2, 

xxi. 2, 3, 

xxi. 4, 5, 

xxi. 8, 9, 

xxi. 10,11,12,13, 243 

xxi. 13, 244 

xxi. 15, 16, 245 

xxi. 17, 246 



202 
203 
206 
207 
208 
209 
222 
223 
225 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



583 



Cliap. 



PAGE. 

xxi. 18—20, 247 
xxi. 21, 247 

xxi. 23, 248, 249 
xxi. 24, 250 

xxi. 25, 26, 251 

xxi. 27, 28—31, 252 



xxi. 32, 
xxi. 33—41, 
xxi. 37, 
xxi. 39, 
xxi. 42, 
xxi. 43, 
xxi. 44, 
xxi. 45, 
xxii. 
xxii. 2, 
xxii. 3, 4, 
xxii. 5, 6, 
xxii. 8, 9. 



253 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
264 
265 
266 
268 
269 
270 
271 



xxii. 10, 11—13, 272 



xxii. 14, 
xxii. 15—46 
xxii. 15, 16, 
xxii. 18, 19, 
xxii. 20, 21, 
xxii. 23, 29, 
xxii. 30, 
xxii. 31, 32, 
xxii. 35—40, 
xxii, 41 — 45 
xxii. 46, 
xxiii. 

xxiii. 2, 3, 
xxiii. 3, 4, 
xxiii. 5 — 7, 
xxiii. 8 — 11, 
xxiii. 12, 
xxiii. 13—3 
xxiii. 13, 14, 
xxiii.15-31,32-3,303 
xxiii. 34—36, 304 
xxiii. 37, 306, 307 
xxiii. 38, 39, 308 
xxiv. 1, 309 

xxiv. 2, 3, 310 

xxiv. 4, 5, 
xxiv. 6, 
xxiv. 15, 
xxiv. 16—22, 
xxiv. 23—27, 
xxiv. 26, 27, 28, 320 
xxv. 46, 248 

xxvii. 15, 16, 356 
xxvii. 19,20, 358,360 



273 
274 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
285 
287 
290 
291 
292 
295 
296 
297 
298 
300 
302 



314 
315 
317 
319 
319 



Chap, 



xxvii. 21, 
xxvii. 22, 
xxvii. 24, 
xxvii. 25, 
xxvii. 27, 
xxvii. 29, 
xxvii. 29, 30, 
xxvii. 3 — 5, 
xxvii. 6, 7, 
xxvii. 8, 9, 10, 



361 
364 
367 
368 
371 
373 
374 
394 
394 
395 



418 
425 
427 
428 
429 
431 
434 
438 



Chap. 



PAGE. 

xxvii. 31, 397 

xxvii. 32, 398 

xxvii. 33, 34, 404 
xxvii. 37, 408, 409 
xxvii. 35, 413 

xxvii. 36, 414 

xxvii. 39—43, 416 
xxvii. 44, 
xxvii. 45, 
xxvii. 47, 
xxvii. 48, 49, 
xxvii. 50, 
xxvii. 51 — 53, 
xxvii. 54, 
xxvii. 57, 
xxvii. 58, 
xxvii. 59, 440, 441 
xxvii. 60, 61, 443 
xxvii. 62-66, 443,445 
xxviii. 1, 446-7, 456 
xxviii. 2-4, 447, 458 
xxviii. 5, 6, 461 
xxviii. 7, 462 

xxviii.8,447,449,462 
xxviii. 9, 10, 479 
xxviii.8-11-15, 449 
xxviii. 11, 481 

xxviii. 12—14, 482 
xxviii. 13, 482 

xxviii. 14, 485 

xxviii. 15, 485 

xxviii.16, 451-2,531 
xxviii. 17,18, 531-2 
xxviii. 19, 532 



MARK. 

iii. 13, 14, 100 

ix. 14—27, 181 

xi. 12-14,20,21, 247 



xii. 25, 
xii. 26, 27, 
xii. 13—37 
xv. 4, 
xv. 6, 7, 8, 
xv. 12, 13, 
xv. 14, 
xv. 15, 
xv. 16, 
xv. 19 
xv. 30, 
xv. 21, 
xv. 28, 
xv. 26, 
xv. 25. 
xv. 29 
xv. 33, 
xv. 34, 35, 
xv. 39, 
xv. 42, 43, 
xv. 44, 45, 
xv. 47, 
xvi. 1, 2, 



32, 



280 
281 
274 
348 
356 
364 
366 
369 
371 
374 
397 
398 
406 
408 
414 
416 
425 

426, 427 
434 
438 
439 
443 

446, 447 









PAGE. 


a 


xvi 


3,4, 


458 


u 


xvi. 


5—8, 


447 


it 


xvi. 


9, 


448 


(i 


xvi. 


10, 11, 


477 


Chap 


xvi. 


12, 


486 


t( 


xvi. 


14, 450- 


-1, 502 


a 


xvi. 


15, 16, 


533 


« 


xvi 


17, 18, 


535 



LUKE. 



Chap 



i. 17, 

iii. 20, 21, 

vi. 12, 13, 

ix. 29, 30, 

ix. 37—42, 

xix. 41 — 44, 

xix. 42, 

xix. 43, 44, 

xx. 20—44, 

xx. 34—36, 

xx. 37, 38, 

xxiii. 2, 

xxiii. 8, 

xxiii. 9, 11, 352,353 

xxiii. 13, 354 

xxiii. 14, 15, 16, 355 

xxiii. 18, 20, 361 

xxiii. 21, 

xxiii. 22, 23, 

xxiii. 24, 25, 

xxiii. 26, 

xxiii. 27, 28, 

xxiii. 29, 

xxiii. 30, 31, 

xxiii. 32, 



63 

70 
100 
172 
181 
240 
241 
242 
274 
280 
281 
335 
350 



364 
366 
369 
398 
400 
401 
402 
403 
405, 406 
413, 407 
408 



xxiii. 33, 

xxiii. 34, 

xxiii. 38, 

xxiii. 35, 

xxiii. 36, 37, 

xxiii. 39, 

xxiii. 40, 41, 

xxiii. 42, 43, 

xxiii. 44, 

xxiii. 46, 

xxiii. 45, 

xxiii. 47, 

xxiii. 48, 

xxiii. 51, 

xxiii. 55, 56, 

xxiv. 1, 2-9, 

xxiv. 10,11, 

xxiv. 12, 

xxiv. 13, 14, 16, 487 

xxiv. 12—34, 449 

xxiv. 19, 488 

xxiv. 13, 30, 31, 450 

xxiv. 20, 21, 489 

xxiv. 5, 6, 7, 465 

xxiv. 22, 23, 489 

xxiv. 24, 

xxiv. 25, 26, 



414 
415 
418 

418 
420 
425 
429 
431 
434 
435 
438 
443 
446-7 
449 
478 



490 
490 



584 



INDEX OF TEXTS. 



Chap 


. xxiv. 27, 


p 


AGE. 

494 


Chap 


PAGE. 

. xix. 5, 6, 375 


{t 


xxiv. 28, 29, 




494 


" 


xix. 6, 7, 376 


tt 


xxiv. 30, 




495 


tt 


xix. 8, 9, 380 


u 


xxiv. 31, 




496 


tt 


xix. 9, 10, 381, 382 


tt 


xxiv. 31, 32,33 


496 


ft 


xix. 11, 383, 384 


n 


xxiv. 34, 




497 


tt 


xix. 12, 389 


a 


xxiv. 35, 36, 


37 


498 


tt 


xix. 13, 390 


it 


xxiv. 38, 39, 


40 


499 


it 


xix. 16, 393, 396 


tt 


xxiv. 41, 




501 


tt 


xix. 17, 397 


a 


xxiv. 42, 43, 




501 


tt 


xix. 19, 408, 409 


(( 


xxiv. 44-49, 


451,5( 


tt 


xix. 20—22, 410,411 


ft 


xxiv. 45, 




507 


tt 


xix. 23, 412 


it 


xxiv. 46, 




507 


tt 


xix. 23, 24, 413 


tt 


xxiv. 47, 




508 


tt 


xix. 25, 422 


t. 


xxiv. 48, 




509 


ft 


xix. 26, 27, 423 


tt 


xxiv. 49, 




511 


tt 


xix. 28, 427 


it 


xxiv. 50, 51, 


451,5] 


it 


xix. 29, 428 


tt 


xxiv. 51 — 52 


t 


516 


tt 


xix. 30, 428, 429 


tt 


xxiv. 52, 




517 


tt 


xix. 31—37, 436 


tt 


xxiv. 53, 




518 


tt 
n 
tt 


xix. 38, 438, 439 
xix.39,40, 440,441 
xix. 41, 42, 442 




JOHN. 






tt 
ft 


xx. 1, 2, 447 
xx. 3, 4, 466 


Chap 


i. 22, 23, 




66 


tt 


xx. 5, 6, 7, 8, 467 


tt 


i. 25, 




67 


tt 


xx. 3—10, ' 448 


a 


x. 41, 




69 


n 


xx. 9, 10, 12, 468 


a 


xviii. 29, 




330 


tt 


xx. 11, 13, 448, 469 


tt 


xviii. 31, 32, 




334 


tt 


xx. 14, 448, 470 


tt 


xviii. 34, 




341 


tt 


xx. 15, 448, 470 


tt 


xviii. 36, 342 


,344 


tt 


xx. 16, 471 


<t 


xviii. 37, 




343 


ft 


xx. 17, 448, 472, 475 


tt 


xviii. 39, 




357 


tt 


xx. 18, 449, 476 


tt 


xviii. 40, 




361 


it 


xx. 19, 503 


a 


xix. 1, 




369 


it 


xx. 21, 510 


tt 


xix. 3, 4, 




374 


tt 


xx. 22, 510 



Chap. 



xx. 23, 
xx. 24, : 
xx. 26, : 
xx. 27, 
xx. 29, 
xxi. 1, 
xxi. 14, 
xxi. 15, 
xxi. 17, 
xxi. 20, 
xxi. 23, 



PAGE. 
512 

519, 520 

451, 520 

522 

522 
452, 525 

528 



16, 

18, 19, 
21,22, 



528 
529 
529 
530 



ACTS. 



Chap. 



i. 3, 4, 


540 


i. 4, 5, 


542 


i. 5, 


541 


i. 6, 


542, 543 


i.7, 


543 


i. 9, 12, 


544 


i. 13, 14, 


546 


ii. 


548 


i. 1, 


552 


ii. 2, 3, 4; 


552 


ii. 14—36, 


554 


ii. 37, 42, 


557 


ii. 43, 


558 


ii. 47, 


559 


iii. 


563 


iii. 12, 


564 


iii. 13, 


564 


iii. 16, 


566 


iii. 17, 19- 


-21, 567 


iii. 21, 


569 


iii. 22, 23, 


574 



j^k 23 im\ 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: June 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



